Jai Prakash v. D.D.A.

1. Late Sh.Khub Ram, the father of the petitioner got himself registered with DDA under Ambedkar Awas Yojna for allotment of an LIG flat. At the time of registration, late Sh.Khub Ram disclosed two addresses, one was his residential address at A-70, Harijan Basti, Near Kalsha Stone, Lal Kuan, Badarpur, New Delhi-44 and other was occupational address, K.R.Studio, Khub Ram Photographers, Pehladpur, New Delhi. According to the petitioner, his father shifted from the residence at Lal Kuan sometime in the year 1998 but did not inform DDA about it. The father of the petitioner expired on 16.11.2006. 2013:DHC:2514

2. It transpires that the name of late Sh.Khub Ram was included in the draw of lots held on 8.10.1999 and according to the demand cum allotment letter was sent to him at the address Khub Ram Photographers, Pehladpur, Delhi. The said letter was received back unserved. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the demand cum allotment letter was sent by DDA only at the residential address disclosed by his father in the registration application and was not sent at the occupational address, after it was received back undelivered when sent at the residential address. The allotment came to be cancelled on account of nonpayment of the price of the flat. Sometime in June/July, 2012, the petitioner found some papers with respect to the registration of his father with DDA under Ambedkar Awas Yojna and visited DDA office to verify the status of said registration. According to him, it was at that time when the above referred information was given to him. The petitioner applied to DDA on 28.8.2011 for mutation/transfer of the registration in his name and was informed by DDA that the said registration had been transferred in his name but only for the purpose of refund of the registration money since allotment made to his father has already been cancelled. Being aggrieved from non-allotment of a flat to him, the petitioner is before this court by way of this writ petition.

3. It would thus be seen that despite two addresses having been disclosed by the petitioner one being the residential address of Lal Kuan and the other being the occupational address, demand cum allotment letter was sent only at the occupational address and admittedly no effort was made to send it to the residential address of the petitioner. Ordinarily, DDA would be required to send the demand cum allotment letter at the second address, in case it remains undelivered at the first address. However, since according to the petitioner, he had already shifted from Lal Kuan as disclosed in the registration form sometime in the year 1998 whereas the allotment came to be made to him only by way of draw of lots held on 8.10.1999 and the demand cum allotment letter was issued to his father sometime in April, 2000, no useful purpose would have been served by DDA sending the demand cum allotment letter at the residential address which had been disclosed in the registration application. It was incumbent upon the father of the petitioner to disclose the changed address to DDA when he shifted from the address which he had disclosed at the time of registration. His having not done so, the petitioner cannot blame DDA for not sending the allotment letter at the residential address since, sending the allotment letter at the previous residential address would have been an exercise in futility.

4. A perusal of the registration form would show that the address disclosed in the form was K.R.Studio, Khub Ram Photographer, Pehladpur, New Delhi. The same was the address given in the demand cum allotment letter. Thus, DDA sent the allotment letter at the occupational address disclosed by the petitioner. The allotment letter was received back with the endorsement ‘incomplete address’. If the father of the petitioner gave incomplete address to DDA, he has to blame only himself for it and no blame can be shifted to DDA for his own lapse in not furnishing the complete postal address. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. V.K. JAIN, J. MAY 15, 2013 rb