* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2052/2007 DALBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. N. Kinra, Advocate. versus D.D.A. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 04.02.2008 1. In 1979 the petitioner got himself registered for allotment of a MIG flat. He was given priority No. 5531. 2. In 1987, he was allotted a MIG flat, which offer was not acceptable to him. In terms of the policy of the DDA, he deposited cancellation charges of Rs.3752.50 with his right to be allotted another MIG flat. The deposit made was accepted by the DDA and the money was retained. The registration of the petitioner continued. 3. It appears that the DDA did not properly maintain it's records. Petitioner was not allotted a MIG flat in his due turn in spite of his depositing cancellation charges. Now DDA wants to deny allotment to the petitioner on the ground that they had taken out public notices calling upon all registrants under the 1979 scheme to submit all details and copies of documents within thirty days of publication of the notice in the newspaper and requests received after expiry of 30 days were to be summarily rejected. 4. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the DDA that the original scheme never provided for issue of public notice in the newspapers. The first two public notices dated 4th July, 2003 and 29th January, 2004 placed on record relate to cases where DDA did not have updated addresses of the registrants as the scheme had continued for unduly long period. The registrants were asked and given an opportunity to furnish new and correct addresses. Notice dated 4th July, 2003 did not stipulate that all registrants must approach DDA. It required those registrants, who had changed their addresses should furnish new addresses failing which they may lose their right to allotment. The second public notice dated 29th January, 2004 in fact mentioned the successful allottees, who have been allotted different flats or plots of land. The registrants under the 1979 scheme were requested to contact Deputy Director(MIG) along with their records for upgradation. It was not stated that their right to entitlement would be cancelled. It is only in the third notice dated 5th February, 2006 that it was for the first time stated that all registrants who do not approach DDA within 30 days and/or fail to furnish documents and details, would not be entitled to allotment and their request would be summarily rejected. 5. The registrants were not supposed to be looking into newspapers day in and day out for the mere possibility that DDA might take out a public notice. The contract never envisaged issue of public notice. It is not the case of the DDA that the address of the petitioner was not available or petitioner- registrant was not entitled to allotment. It appears to be a simple case where DDA did not maintain records properly and wrongly did not include the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots. Now, the entire burden is sought to be passed on to the petitioner because he did not respond to a small advertisement published in one newspaper in Delhi on 5th February, 2006. Once the address of the petitioner was available, the respondent should have written a letter and asked the petitioner to furnish the details and provide any other particulars that were required. Further, if the petitioner met all parameters and was entitled to allotment, his name should have been included in the tail end priority. 6. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 25th November, 1999 titled Dr. Poonam Verma & Ors. versus Delhi Development Authority is misconceived. The said case related to allotment under self-finance scheme, wherein numerous offers were made to the registrants under the scheme but they failed to exercise their option. DDA, therefore, closed the scheme. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the allottees themselves were responsible as they had refused to exercise their option and accept the flats which were available for allotment from time to time but the registrants did not exercise the option. In the present case, admittedly allotment was made to the petitioner in 1987, which option the petitioner did not exercise and he deposited the cancellation charges as demanded by the DDA. Once cancellation charges were deposited, the registration of the petitioner continued and in terms of the scheme, the petitioner was entitled to second allotment. The petitioner has been denied his right to second allotment due to the fault and mistake of the DDA in not maintaining their records properly. 7. The view I am taking is in consonance with the view taken by other single Judge of this Court in Abhay Prakash Sinha versus Delhi Development Authority, W.P. (C) No. 119/2007 decided on 7th November, 2007, wherein it has been observed as under:- “10. Before this Court, the sole reliance of the DDA is on the public notices which have been issued. It is apparent from the public notices that the DDA was conscious of the fact that several persons who were legitimately entitled to consideration for allotment of the flats on tail end priority or other priorities, had been overlooked. Certainly, the petitioner cannot be faulted for the failure of the DDA to consider the petitioner for allotment of the flat on a mere premise that they have issued public notices. 11. So far as the impact of such public notices effecting the private rights of the persons is concerned, it is required to be borne in mind that the applicants have been made to wait for decades for allotment of the flats. In the instant case, the petitioner has been waiting since the year 1979. Certainly, the citizens cannot be expected to be following newspapers of every single day for over 25 years keeping track of public notices which may be issued by the DDA. Such a plea on behalf of the DDA is both unfair and unreasonable. The respondent cannot be permitted to so avoid the responsibility and liability to consider the petitioner for allotment of a flat in an appropriate draw of lots especially in the facts which have been noticed hereinabove. 12. My attention has been drawn to an order dated 20th March, 2007 passed in W.P. (C) No. 11654/2006 entitled(sic) Subhash Chander Sethi vs. Delhi Development Authority, wherein in similar circumstances, the Court had rejected a plea taken by the DDA placing reliance on its public notices. 13. Another order dated 19th July, 2007 passed in W.P. (C) No. 10570/2006 entitled(sic) Tajinder Kaur Vs. DDA has been placed before this Court wherein the Court has rejected the DDA's contention and reliance on the public notices which were issued by it to deprive the bona fide registrants who have been waiting for several decades, for allotment of the flats. 14. Mr. Kinra, learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on an order dated 21st July, 2006 in Writ Petition (C) No. 20250/2005 Jay Prakash Vs. DDA passed by this Court. 15. From the above, it is apparent that the petitioner was not a defaulter and yet his flat was cancelled. The petitioner sought restoration of the flat which does not appear to have been even considered. The petitioner had agreed to adjustment of cancellation charges from his amount lying with the DDA which the DDA consented to and actually effected. Certainly, the petitioner's case is required to be treated as all other tail end priority cases as per the policy of the DDA. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not been considered for such allotment I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is entitled to consideration of allotment of a MIG flat.” 8. Similar view has also been taken in W.P. (C) No. 11654/2006 titled Subhash Chander Sethi versus D.D.A decided on 20th March, 2007. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to succeed. The writ petition is allowed. DDA is directed to allot a flat to the petitioner in terms of the 1979 scheme and as per their present policy raise demand. The aforesaid exercise will be completed within a period of four months from today. The writ petition stands disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 04, 2008 VKR