LPA 716/2010 Page 1 of 5 #2 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 716/2010 ASHOK KUMAR JAIN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna with Ms. Jyoti Kalra and Ms. Anupam Jha, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocates Reserved on: 1st November, 2010 % Date of Decision: 10th November, 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? No. 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 17873/2010 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM 17872/2010 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal LPA 716/2010 Page 2 of 5 is condoned. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. LPA 716/2010 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 14th May, 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant’s writ petition being W.P.(C) 293/2009. 2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the appellant made an application dated 24th September, 1979 for registration of allotment of flat/house under the 4th Registration Scheme floated by respondent- DDA. According to appellant, he shifted his residence in the year 1983 from C-73 (121), South Moti Bagh, New Delhi to 81-B, Pocket-3, Phase-I, Mayur Vihar, Delhi. It is the appellant’s case that intimation of change of address was duly given to the respondent-DDA. It is further the appellant’s case that in the year 1992, the appellant again shifted his residence from Mayur Vihar to 240, Suryaniketan, Opp. Anand Vihar, Delhi. It is also the appellant’s case that the respondent- DDA was informed about the second change of address vide letters sent by UPC dated 11th April, 1996 and 21st October, 1996. However, the respondent-DDA has disputed receipt of any information with regard to second change of address. 3. On the other hand, it is the respondent-DDA’ case that since the appellant did not respond either to the demand-cum-allotment letter with Block dates 26th December, 2001 – 31st December, 2001 or to the show cause notice dated 4th October, 2002, the respondent-DDA LPA 716/2010 Page 3 of 5 cancelled the allotment of the flat in Phase-2, Pocket A, Sector 17, Dwarka, New Delhi. 4. Since the appellant was aggrieved with the said cancellation, he filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 293/2009 contending therein that the petitioner-appellant was never informed either about allotment or about show cause notice prior to the cancellation of flat allotted to appellant. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition by observing as under :- “7. I have heard counsel for the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied to the DDA in the year 1979 for allotment of a flat/house for residential purposes and he also deposited Rs. 4500/-. The petitioner shifted his residence from South Moti Bagh to Mayur Vihar in the year 1983-84 and he duly informed the DDA about the change of his address. In the year 1992 he again shifted from Mayur Vihar to Anand Vihar and he informed the DDA by letters dated 11.04.1996 and 24.10.1996 which was duly sent under UPC. In the year 2000 he enquired from the DDA with regard to his allotment. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner learnt that the demand-cum- allotment letter was sent to the petitioner at the address of Mayur Vihar. It has also been submitted that the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent at incomplete address, as Mayur Vihar has three phases and the DDA has not mentioned the phase number, and thus petitioner would be covered under the wrong address policy of the DDA. I find no force in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner as the original record has been produced in the court, which shows that demand-cum- allotment letter was sent at the address, as intimated by the petitioner to the DDA. The address notified to the DDA did not mention the phase number. The original file also reveals that the demand-cum-allotment letter as well as show cause notice was issued to the petitioner at the address mentioned in the communication dated 05.04.1983 addressed by the petitioner to the DDA. Original record also reveals that demand-cum-allotment letter was duly received on behalf of the petitioner, which is evident from the speed post acknowledgement which LPA 716/2010 Page 4 of 5 has been placed on record. In view of the documents placed on record, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. There is no infirmity in the order of cancellation passed by the DDA. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.” 5. Mr. Rajesh Gogna, learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated before us that the cancellation of allotment of the flat was bad in law as appellant had not been informed about the initial allotment at his new address at 240, Suryaniketan, Opp. Anand Vihar, Delhi, even though the respondent-DDA had been intimated about the second change of address. He further submitted that the respondent-DDA is bound in law to issue the allotment letter by way of a registered A.D. letter. 6. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel for respondent-DDA has referred to the counter-affidavit filed by the DDA before the learned Single Judge. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under:- “3. That the petitioner vide letter dated 14.07.2008 intimated that he had not received the allotment letter and further stated that petitioner shifted his residence to 240, Suryaniketan, Delhi-110092 in the year 1991 and gave the intimation of change of address through registered post in 1995-1996. Here it is pointed out that no change of address letter was received from the petitioner.” 7. Ms. Salwan has also produced the original file maintained by the respondent-DDA pertaining to allotment of flat to appellant. 8. Having heard the parties and having perused the record, we are of the view that the solitary issue that requires to be determined in the present proceedings is as to whether respondent-DDA had intimated the LPA 716/2010 Page 5 of 5 demand-cum-allotment as well as the show cause notice to appellant at the correct address prior to cancellation of allotment. 9. From a perusal of the record, we find that there is no intimation by the appellant to respondent-DDA about the second change of address prior to the cancellation of allotment. Moreover, we also find that not only the demand-cum-allotment letter and show cause notice were sent to the Mayur Vihar address furnished by the appellant but the same had also been received by one Ms. Janak Kumari on behalf of the appellant. 10. Consequently, we are of the view that the action of respondent- DDA is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed but with no order as to costs. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE NOVEMBER 10, 2010 rn