LPA 467/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 467/2010 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P.K. Mittal, Advocate versus RAKESH JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None. % Date of Decision : 13th August, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J CM No. 12124/2010 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. CM No. 12123/2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 111 days in filing the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and regard being had to the assertions made in the application, we find sufficient cause LPA 467/2010 Page 2 of 4 for condonation of delay and, accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. LPA 467/2010 & CM No. 12122/2010 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 09th February, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) 5490/2007 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the respondent’s writ petition. 2. In fact, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has observed as under:- “5. I have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the original record which has been produced in Court. It has been contended that the demand/allotment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner with the block dates 30.08.2001 – 04.09.2001. The petitioner had applied to the DDA in the year 1979 and after a long wait the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner. The DDA had sent demand/allotment letter by courier, however, the same was returned undelivered which is evident from the record which has been produced in Court. The original envelop bears the endorsement of the courier company. It has been repeatedly held by this Court in various cases with regards to internal notings of the DDA and also held that in case the demand/allotment letters are received undelivered, DDA should make all efforts to serve demand/allotment letter to the allottees by registered AD and courier. The DDA should have made efforts in sending demand/allotment letter through registered AD post, through post and telegraph office, in view of the fact that endorsement made on the envelop of the courier company is not convincing and more particularly when an earlier letter written by the DDA dated 12.12.1989 already stands delivered to the petitioner at the same address. Accordingly, the petitioner must succeed. In case the flat allotted by DDA in the year 2001 is not available, the name of the petitioner will be included in the MINI draw of LPA 467/2010 Page 3 of 4 lots which shall be held not later than two months from today. As petitioner has not approached the DDA within four years of the allotment, DDA would be entitled to raise the demand/allotment letter as per their policy.” 3. Mr. P.K. Mittal, learned counsel for the appellant-DDA submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that after registration of flat in the year, 1979, the respondent went into slumber and did not enquire till 2007 about his status of allotment with DDA. Mr. Mittal, further pointed out that the learned Single Judge had ignored the fact that communication had been sent to the respondent through well established courier service and the list of successful allottees had been published in daily newspapers. 4. We have not only heard learned counsel for the appellant but have also perused the original file. We are of the view that the publication of list of successful allottees in newspaper would not constitute sufficient notice as there was a long time lag between the date of application and the date of allotment. Moreover, it is impossible for the allottees to keep track of all advertisements published by the DDA as they are so many in number. 5. In fact, the only communication that was sent by the appellant- DDA to the respondent was a demand/allotment letter sent by courier which was received back undelivered with an endorsement in Hindi that no such number on GT Road and some landmark should be given as GT Road is very big. LPA 467/2010 Page 4 of 4 6. The original envelope does not bear any address and even if the address on the demand/allotment letter is taken to be correct, then also we fail to understand as to how the courier agency could have given the aforesaid endorsement as Shahdara area is not an undefined area. Moreover, a previous communication at the same address sent by the appellant-DDA itself had been received by the respondent. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge upon receipt of the endorsement from the courier service, appellant-DDA should have made efforts to serve the demand/allotment letter on the respondent by registered AD or by any other mode. 7. With the aforesaid observations, present appeal and application stand dismissed in limine. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 13, 2010 js