KUMKUM SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late R.R. Bhatnagar registered himself with the Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA), under New Pattern Scheme in 1979 for allotment of a MIG flat. On 1st of December, 1989 Shri Bhatnagar applied for transfer of his registration in favour of his daughter, the petitioner herein. On 14th of February, 1990 Shri Bhatnagar died. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26th of September, 1991 the petitioner sent a reminder to the DDA for transfer of registration enclosing the death certificate of Shri Bhatnagar and requested for transfer of registration in her name. According to the petitioner another application was sent enclosing the affidavit, indemnity bond, consent letter and death certificate of Shri R.R. Bhatnagar. It seems that the draw of lots took place in February, 1994 where deceased R.R. Bhatnagar was found eligible for allotment of a MIG flat. The intimation of such allotment was sent at the address of R.R. Bhatnagar as given in the initial application by R.R. Bhatnagar. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that when late R.R. Bhatnagar had himself applied for transfer of registration in favour of petitioner alongwith the required documents after the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner had sent various letters, non-sending of allotment letter at the address of the petitioner was totally illegal, arbitrary and with ulterior motives. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the whole case of the petitioner is demolished by the letter written by the Assistant Director of the respondent which is at page 35 of the paper book addressed to the petitioner at the address of the petitioner. The letter is as under:

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the receipt of this letter from the office of the Assistant Director of the respondent belies the story put forward by the respondent that no other address was available in the office of the respondent except the address as mentioned in the application of R.R. Bhatnagar. Therefore, it has been contended that the allotment of a flat in 1994 pursuant to which Bhatnagar was found eligible for allotment the letter of allotment could have been sent for intimation to the petitioner as it was only the petitioner who was corresponding with the respondent. In this connection it is contended that after the petitioner came to know about the draw of lots the petitioner approached the respondent for issuing the demand-cum-allotment letter so that she could deposit the required amount with the DDA. In this connection letters were written to expedite the matter. In spite of giving any relief to the petitioner, the respondent vide its letter dated 3rd of April, 1997 cancelled the allotment of the flat due to non- submission of payment/document.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the transfer could not be effected on account of no objection and other legal formalities of Shri Bhatnagar. It is further contended that as per the Brochure only one address of Shri Bhatnagar was available and no other address was available with the respondent. It has also been contended .that as transfer has not taken place in favour of the petitioner, therefore, petitioner could not have been intimated about the draw of lots. It is further contended that a demand-cum-allotment letter was sent at the last known address available in the record of the respondent in the name of the Shri Bhatnagar and that no new change of address was communicated by late R.R. Bhatnagar or the petitioner in time. As such the demand-cum-allotment letter was to be sent at the address of late Bhatnagar.