24 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9977/2006 % Judgment Delivered on: 18.05.2010 BHAGWANT SARUP SANGHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Neeraj Grover, Advocate versus D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Arjun Pant, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL) 1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. The facts as set out in this petition are that petitioner deposited Rs.4500/- as registration fee under HUDCO Booking 1979 Scheme. Petitioner was allotted priority no.35339. At the time when petitioner registered himself, he was a residing at 3-C/1, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. According to this petition, petitioner shifted his residence from 3-C/1, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi to Flat No.732, C.A. Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. This information was sent to the DDA by a communication dated 12.03.1995 by registered AD, copy of the postal receipt has been placed on record. In the year 2002 a demand/ allotment letter was issued to the petitioner, however, the same was sent at the old address of New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, which was not received by the petitioner. Petitioner addressed a communication dated 12.02.2004 to DDA, copy of which has been placed on record. As per this communication, petitioner reiterated that he had shifted his residence and that he had learnt from the office of DDA that a flat was allotted to him, however, he has not received the demand/ allotment letter. Petitioner addressed another communication dated 06.09.2004 to the DDA and thereafter also communications dated 03.03.2005, 12.05.2005, 20.06.2005 and 05.01.2006 were issued to the DDA, copies of the letters along with acknowledgement of the DDA have been placed on record, however, no reply was received. The petitioner was informed by DDA vide letter dated 22.02.2006 in response to last communication wherein the DDA rejected the request of the petitioner and called upon him to seek his refund of the amount deposited. While counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is fully covered by the wrong address policy of the DDA dated 25.03.2005, the stand of the DDA is that the communication dated 12.03.1995 was not received in the office of the DDA. 2. Mr.Arjun Pant, counsel for DDA submits that in the absence of information with regard to change of address, DDA cannot be found at fault for not issuing demand-cum-allotment letter at the fresh address. However, there is no explanation as to why the DDA did not respond to various communications/ representations made to the DDA between the year 2004 and the year 2006. 3. Counsel while relying on section 27 of the General Clauses Act, submits that there is presumption in favour of the petitioner that the communication dated 12.03.1995 would have been received by the DDA, as the same was dispatched to the DDA by the petitioner by registered AD post, copy of the postal receipt has been placed on record. Counsel further submits that communication was sent in the year 1995 and at this belated stage it is not possible for the postal authorities to give a certificate whether the aforesaid letter was in fact received or not by the DDA. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the parties. The petitioner had applied under HUDCO Booking Scheme, 1979 for a plot. Petitioner was allotted priority No.35339. At the time of registration, petitioner was residing at New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. On 12.03.1995 petitioner informed the DDA with regard to change of address from New Rohtak Road to Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, copy of the communication dated 12.03.1995 has been placed on record along with the postal receipt, which shows that the letter was sent by registered AD post to Vikas Sadan, DDA, which is the correct address. I find force in the submission of counsel for the petitioner that since the letter was issued at the correct address and by the registered AD post, there is a presumption in favour of the petitioner that the aforesaid letter was delivered to the addressee in terms of section 27 of the General Clauses Act. 5. The petitioner having not received the demand/ demand letter at the changed address, the case of the petitioner would be covered under the wrong address policy. The petitioner having informed the DDA within four years of issuance of the demand/ allotment letter, petitioner would be entitled to pay the cost of the year 2002. The cost will be calculated as per the office order dated 25.02.2005. The DDA being a statutory authority is duty bound to respond to the communications addressed by an ordinary citizen. It is noticed that despite communications dated 06.09.2004, 03.03.2005, 12.05.2005, 20.06.2005 and 05.01.2006, having been issued, the DDA responded to only one communication and that only in the year 2006. In case the communication would have been responded to at the very first instance, it is expected that petitioner would have approached this Court in the year 2004 itself and not waited for two years. While the petitioner has been deprived of possession of the flat, the DDA would also be deprived of the charges. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. The name of the petitioner will be included in the draw of lot, which shall be held within three months from receipt of the order and a flat shall be allotted as per the policy dated 25.02.2005. 6. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. G.S. SISTANI, J. May 18, 2010 'ssn’