W.P. (C) No. 11925/2006 Page 1 38. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11925/2006 Date of decision: 17th April, 2009 MOHAN LAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Manish Paliwal, Advocate. versus D.D.A. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? O R D E R % 1. The petitioner deposited Rs.12,000/- in the year 1989 with the respondent-DDA and was registered for allotment of a MIG flat under Ambedkar Awas Yojna. 2. It appears that the petitioner made some enquiries in the year 2005 from the office of the respondent-DDA and came to know that he had been allotted a flat in Dwarka and allotment-cum-demand letter dated 31st January, 2003 was issued to him. Thereupon, the petitioner wrote letter dated 24th September, 2005 requesting DDA to intimate the amount payable by him so that he can complete the formalities. The petitioner did W.P. (C) No. 11925/2006 Page 2 not get any response from DDA and thereafter wrote two more letters dated 30th January, 2006 and 20th February, 2006. The DDA did not respond to these letters also. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 and thereupon by reply dated 27th February, 2006 was informed that the petitioner was allotted a flat in the draw of lots held on 31st January, 2003 on hire purchase basis and demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him. It was stated that the said letter was not received back undelivered and as per the terms and conditions of the said letter as the petitioner had not deposited the demanded amount and the requisite documents within the stipulated time, the allotment as well as the registration itself was cancelled. The petitioner was asked to submit original documents for refund of the registration amount of Rs.12,000/-. The petitioner wrote further letters but was not successful in getting any relief and has now filed the present writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit, DDA has again taken the plea that demand- cum-allotment letter was issued to the petitioner on 21st April, 2003. The respondent-DDA has been able to locate and place on record the dispatch register which also has the bar code sticker issued by the postal department. However, the respondent-DDA has not been able to place on record any proof of delivery of the said letter. Learned counsel for the respondent-DDA states that as per the register maintained by DDA, an W.P. (C) No. 11925/2006 Page 3 acknowledgement card was received back. However, the acknowledgement card is not available on their record and it cannot be stated what was mentioned and stated in the said acknowledgement card. Plea of presumption under the General Clauses Act and Evidence Act for delivery of letters is raised. The said provisions create rebuttable presumption. There have been cases where postal envelops have not been delivered, have got misplaced or have been wrongly delivered at an incorrect address. In the present case, the petitioner had deposited Rs.12,000/- with the respondent-DDA way back in 1989. It is difficult to imagine that the petitioner would not have accepted the flat allotted to him in 2003 after waiting for 14 years. I may note that the flat allotted to the petitioner was on hire purchase basis not on cash down basis. Allotment of a DDA flat on hire-purchase basis after a waiting for 14 years is a reason to celebrate and a dream that has become a reality. Normally, no one will miss and give us his allotment. 4. The respondent-DDA has not written any further letter after dispatching the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 21st April, 2003. In view of the fact that the petitioner was registered way back in 1989 and allotment was made after considerable delay in the year 2003, DDA as a public authority, before cancellation of registration should have informed the petitioner by another warning or notice. This has not been done in the present case. W.P. (C) No. 11925/2006 Page 4 5. Keeping in view the above aspects, I feel that the petitioner’s registration should not be treated as cancelled and petitioner’s name should be included in the next mini draw of lots. However, the petitioner will be entitled to allotment at current costs. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. APRIL 17, 2009 VKR