W.P. (C) No. 9301/2007 Page 1 12. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9301/2007 Date of decision: 28th April, 2009 BALBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S.K. Mishra & Mr. G.S. Tiwari, Advocates. Versus D.D.A. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, 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. Admit. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard for final disposal. 2. The petitioner Mr. Balbir Singh on deposit of Rs.1500/- was registered with DDA under New Pattern Scheme 1979 (HUDCO). He was allotted registration No. 10047. 3. The petitioner has been waiting for allotment of flat for last 28 W.P. (C) No. 9301/2007 Page 2 years. 4. The petitioner has stated that in 2006 he had approached the respondent-DDA and made enquiry about the status of his registration. At that time, the petitioner was informed that a flat was allotted in his name but the same was handed over to a third person unauthorisedly and no intimation or information was given to him. When his oral request did not yield results, he had sent legal notice dated 15th November, 2007. DDA in response to the legal notice informed the petitioner that his request for issue of demand-cum-allotment letter had been considered but rejected by the competent authority as the petitioner was allotted a flat, but as there was no response, his allotment and registration both stand cancelled. By letter dated 2nd November, 2007, DDA called upon the petitioner to apply for refund of the registration money, rather than ask or stake any claim/right for allotment of flat. 5. Similar stand has been taken by the respondent-DDA in their counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner was allotted LIG flat No. 366, third floor, Sector 14, Pocket 2, Phase 2, Dwarka on cash down basis in the draw of lots held on 8th October, 1999 and demand-cum-allotment letter with block dates 30.3.2000-13.4.2000 was sent to the petitioner at the last available address, viz., H-16, Chest Centre and Hospital, Kilokari, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi-110024 but the same was returned back W.P. (C) No. 9301/2007 Page 3 undelivered. It is also stated that a general advertisement was published in the newspaper mentioning registration numbers of successful allottees, who had failed to respond to the letters of allotment. 6. The respondents have produced before me the original file. The file reveals that demand-cum-allotment letter with block dates 30.3.2000- 13.4.2000 was sent to the petitioner under registered post. The original demand-cum-allotment letter has two addresses mentioned therein. The computer print out address is as under:- “BALBIR SINGH RAWAT H No. 16 CHAT CONTREG HOSPATEL KILOKHRE MEHUR NAGAR” 7. Below the said computer print out address, the following address is written by hand:- “H.No.- H-16, Chest Centre & Hospital (Kilokari) Nehru Nagar, N. Delhi-24” 8. On the envelop in which the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent the address of the petitioner was not specifically mentioned. The envelop has on lower portion a transparent paper for reading and identifying the address to which the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent. 9. The report of the postal authorities and the reason for non-delivery of the letter was “address not proper”. Thus, admittedly the petitioner did not receive the demand-cum-allotment letter. It is not known whether the hand written address mentioned in the demand-cum-allotment letter was W.P. (C) No. 9301/2007 Page 4 written prior to the dispatch of notice or after the notice was received back. Secondly, it is also possible that only the printed/typed portion of the address mentioned on the demand-cum-allotment letter was visible to the postman and he was not able to read the hand written address, which is mentioned below. In any case, the respondent-DDA in view of the report of the postal authorities and after reading the typed printed address should have taken precaution to resend the demand-cum-allotment letter. Attempt to serve the demand-cum-allotment letter once again should have been made. After all, the petitioner had enrolled himself and was registered in a scheme, which was introduced in 1979 and after waiting for more than 20 years in 1999, the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued for a flat. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the respondent-DDA that small advertisements in newspapers was sufficient notice to the petitioner. There was no such term and condition in the original scheme. Further, before cancellation of registration, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to respond and give explanation. Cancellation of registration is not the same as cancellation of allotment of a flat. It has adverse consequences for a person who has deposited registration amount and has been waiting for more than 25 years for his flat. In these circumstances, I feel the respondents have been unfair, unjust and arbitrary in cancelling the registration of the petitioner as the demand- W.P. (C) No. 9301/2007 Page 5 cum-allotment letter could not be served on the petitioner by the postal authorities. 10. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2007 and the petitioner approached DDA on 16th July, 2007. In these circumstances, I feel the petitioner should be charged cost of the flat as per the rate prevalent as on 31st December, 2007. In addition, the petitioner will be liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the aforesaid cost. The petitioner’s name will be included in the mini draw of lots, which should be held within two months and he will be allotted a flat in Dwarka. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. APRIL 28, 2009 VKR