Sanjay Wasson v. DDA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

2. Facts of the case as set out in the petition are that father of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the original allottee”) had booked a MIG flat in the year 1979 vide Registration No.39630. In the application form, the original allottee had mentioned two addresses - one being the residential address and the other being his occupational address, which is evident from the photocopy of the application form, which has been filed along with the writ petition. The original allottee expired on 2.6.1994. On 24.9.1999 in the draw held with the last date of payment as 15.9.1999 the 2011:DHC:2757 original allotee was allotted a flat bearing no.157, Pocket D, Sector 17, First Floor, Dwarka, Delhi. Although a demand letter was sent at the residential address mentioned in the application form, however, the demand letter was received back by the DDA undelivered with the endorsement “shifted”. Admittedly, the demand letter was not sent at the occupational address, which was available with the DDA.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the original allottee had died his family had shifted out of the said residence, the Demand-cum-allotment letter could not be received. Mr.Kinra, counsel for the petitioner submits that as per DDA’s own policy once the demand letter was received back undelivered, in that case the demand letter was to be sent at all the addresses available with the DDA.

4. Counsel further submits that for the first time the petitioner approached the DDA by a communication dated 12.12.2000 to know about the status of the allotment and intimated DDA about the death of his father and thereafter he was given a personal hearing by the Deputy Director on 16.6.2005 when he learnt about the status of the draw, which was held on 15.9.1998 and also the fact that a demand letter was sent at the residential address from where the petitioner had left.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the request of the petitioner for mutation of the allotment in his favour was not exceeded to by the DDA, despite the petitioner having approached the DDA on 2.3.2006, 22.1.2007 and 12.6.2000[9] and it is only on 7.4.2010 DDA directed the petitioner to file necessary documents for carrying out mutation, which were filed, and thereafter mutation was effected in favour of the petitioner on 12.5.2010. Petitioner seeks allotment of a flat as per the policy of the DDA.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although petitioner approached the DDA within four years of allotment, neither mutation was carried out nor fresh demand-cum-allotment letter was issued.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent disputes receipt of letter dated 12.12.2000. Counsel further submits that even otherwise there is no explanation as to why the petitioner remained silent between the years 2000 to 2005 whereas after the year 2005 the petitioner has been extremely active, which is evident from the fact stated in the writ petition.

8. Mr.Kinra, submits that even assuming without admitting that petitioner approached the respondent after four years, petitioner would still be entitled to a flat on the payment of interest at the rate of 12% on the demand letter issued to the petitioner in the year 1999, as per the policy of the DDA.

9. I have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the writ petition and annexures filed thereto. Basic facts of the case are not in dispute that original allottee had made an application to the DDA for allotment of MIG flat vide Registration No.39630. In the application form he had given two addresses one being the residential i.e. No.838, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, Delhi-6, and the other being occupational address i.e. No.3973, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-

6. A demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the original allottee at the residential address, however, the said demand-cumallotment letter was not received by the original allottee or his family members and as per the postal authorities the letter was undelivered with the endorsement “shifted”. The DDA for the reasons best known to it, did not issue the demand letter to the original allottee at the second address available with them and as per their own policy given in file no.195(155)93 and Office Order dated 25.2.1995, which was being followed by DDA. Policy of the DDA is not disputed by counsel for the DDA. Having regard to the facts of the case I am satisfied that the aforesaid policy of the DDA would be applicable in the case of the petitioner.

10. The next question, which arises for consideration is the date when the petitioner approached the DDA. The date when petitioner approached DDA is crucial for this reason that in case petitioner approached DDA within four years of issue of demand-cumallotment letter, DDA would not be entitled to interest.

11. Since there is nothing on record to show that the letter dated 12.12.2010 was posted, delivered or received by the DDA, it would be deemed that petitioner had approached the DDA after four years of allotment letter. Thus, as per the policy of the DDA dated 25.2.2005, DDA would be entitled to charge Simple Interest from the petitioner at the rate of 12%, per annum, w.e.f. original allotment till the date of issue of demand-cum-allotment letter. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.