LPA No.195/2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: March 18th, 2010 Decided on: March 23rd, 2010 + LPA 195/2010 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate. versus SUKHJINDER SINGH BHATIA ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not necessary. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Not necessary. MUKTA GUPTA, J. CM No.4996/2010 (condonation of delay) & LPA No.195/2010 1. The present appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, wherein, the Appellant states that the delay of 190 days in filing of the LPA No.195/2010 Page 2 of 5 appeal occurred as the file got tagged up with the other files of the Appellant and it could not be noticed that the same was for drafting of the appeal. It is only when the notice in a contempt petition was received, it was found that the appeal was not drafted, as it was tagged along with the other files of the Appellant authority, causing delay in filing of the present appeal. In view of the facts stated, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 2. Ironically, the Appellant seeks condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, however, on merits contends that the Respondent’s writ petition should have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on delay and laches. 3. In the present appeal the Appellant challenges the order dated 27th July, 2009 wherein the writ petition being WP(C) No. 5333/2008 filed by the Respondent was allowed with the following directions: “Since the petitioner approached the Respondents in 2004 and it is contended that a draw of lots for LIG flat took place in 2004, therefore, the name of the petitioner ought to have been included in the draw of lots of LIG flats in 2004. Since the name of the petitioner has not been included in the draw of lots, the petitioner is entitled for allotment of LIG flat pursuant to the draw of lots to be held by the Respondent. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the mini draw/draw of lots within three months for the LPA No.195/2010 Page 3 of 5 LIG category and issue demand-cum-allotment letter within four weeks after the draw of lot of the LIG flat. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner shall be liable to pay the cost of the flat as per the rate for the allotment of LIG flat in 2004 since the petitioner has approached in 2004. This fact is also not denied by the counsel for DDA though under the policy the petitioner is liable to pay the rates of 1993 as draw of lot for flats had taken place in 1993, the letter of which was sent at wrong address. The learned counsel says that the rates of allotment of 2004 are higher than that of 1993. The Appellant shall also be liable to pay simple interest at 12% till date. On issuance of demand-cum-allotment letter and compliance of all the commercial formalities, the petitioner shall be entitled for possession of the flat forthwith. The name of the petitioner is to be considered for the allotment of the flats in the same zone for which the allotment was made and cancelled on account of non-service of demand-cum- allotment letter at the wrong address.” 4. The case of the Respondent in the writ petition was that he booked a LIG flat vide registration No.25527 under NPRS 1979 scheme. The address of the Respondent given in the application form was “Flat No.235, Pocket-3, Paschim Puri.” Pursuant to the draw of lots a demand-cum-allotment letter was sent by the Appellant at the wrong address i.e. Flat No.23, Pocket 3, Janta Flats, Paschim Puri, Delhi-3, instead of the abovementioned address. As the location of two addresses is quite different, the Respondent was not delivered the demand-cum-allotment letter. The Respondent, therefore, could not deposit the amount demanded. It is contended that since demand-cum- allotment letter was received back unserved, the DDA ought to have sent the LPA No.195/2010 Page 4 of 5 letter at the correct address and having not done so, cannot take the plea of delay and laches. The Respondent thereafter made representations relying on the policy of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as per which in cases where the allotment letters are sent at the wrong address and subsequently when the allottee is allotted a flat, on account of mistake of DDA, the same price as per the original demand was to be charged from him. The Respondent clearly substantiated his contentions by demonstrating that on his continuous representations, for the first time the DDA responded in December, 2004 when he was also given a copy of this demand-cum-allotment letter which had the wrong address. The Respondent thus claiming parity to the decisions rendered in writ petitions being WP(C) No. 10983/2004, WP (C) No.2107/2007 and WP (C) No.4503/2006 and in terms of the policy, seeks allotment. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that there was a delay of nearly 15 years in filing the writ petition and in view of the delay and laches, the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained this writ petition. Relying on the demand-cum-allotment letter issued on 27th December, 1993/31st December, 1993, it was contended that the last date of deposit of the cost of the flat and the required document was 31st March, 1994 and the Respondent having failed to adhere thereto, he is not entitled to any relief. LPA No.195/2010 Page 5 of 5 The Appellant though contested the pleas of the Respondent before the learned Single Judge, however could not substantiate the same as the file of the DDA relating to this case is missing and despite imposition of costs by the learned Single Judge the same could not be traced. The Appellant could also not substantiate their contentions of the correspondences showing the proof that the Respondent had received the demand-cum-allotment letter in the absence of the file, which is not traceable. 6. It is in this backdrop that the learned Single Judge held that the name of the Respondent ought to have been included in the draw of lots in 2004 and since his name was not included in the said draw of lots, the Respondent is entitled for allotment of LIG flat pursuant to the draw of lots to be held by the Respondent. 7. We find the order of the learned Single Judge to be unexceptionable. There is no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE (MADAN B.LOKUR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MARCH 23, 2010 mm