Ram Asre v. Delhi Development Authority

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

NO ANIL KUMAR, J. *

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent to treat the case of the petitioner as covered under the incorrect/wrong/change of address policy as the allotment made to the petitioner in year 2006 was cancelled on account of sending the demand cum allotment letter at the incorrect address though the correct address had been intimated by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has contended that he got himself registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 for allotment of a LIG flat 2009:DHC:3156 by the registration Number 7391 and paid an amount of Rs.1500/-. The petitioner was allotted a priority number 53194 in the year 1986.

3. The petitioner categorically contended that at the time of registration he had intimated his future correspondence address as “2654, Gali Raghunandan Naya Bazar, Delhi-6”.

4. The petitioner has asserted that in 2008 it transpired during a public hearing that his priority had matured in 2006, however, the intimation about the allotment of flat was sent to “9654, Gali Raghunandan Naya Bazar, Delhi-6” which is the incorrect address. In the circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that his name be included in the mini draw/draw which should be held expeditiously for the same zone or nearby zone and a flat be allotted to him at the rate of 2006.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/DDA on instructions states that the petitioner shall be allotted a flat now after the mini draw of lots under the wrong address policy in the same zone or nearby zone subject to availability of the flats in these zones.

6. Perusal of the office order dated 25th February, 2005 filed with the writ petition, it is apparent that in case of issuance of demand letter at wrong addresses and missing priority cases of DDA flats and in case the registrant approaches DDA within four years of the date of issuance of demand letter, the new flat is to be allotted at the old cost prevalent at the time when the priority of the allottee matured and the allotment letter was issued. The policy also stipulates that no interest would be charged by the DDA from such registrants.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent cannot deny the policy of the DDA, a copy of which is filed by the petitioner. Rather the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the case of the petitioner shall be considered in terms of the policy of the DDA in this regard.

8. Consequently the writ petition is to be allowed. The respondent is, therefore, directed to include the name of the petitioner in the mini draw/draw for the same zone or the nearby zone, if available in those zones, within three months. After the mini draw/draw within three months, demand-cum-allotment letter be issued to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. On payment of the consideration and fulfilling of other conditions for allotment of flat within four weeks after the receipt of demand-cum-allotment letter, the possession of the allotted flat be also handed over to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. The demand for allotment of flat shall be at the rate prevalent at the time of maturing of the priority of the petitioner in 2006. The DDA shall also be not entitled to claim interest on the said amount.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms hereof. The parties are, however, left to bear their own cost. All the pending applications are also disposed of. August 10, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. „k‟