KISHAN LAL SINDHI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to allotto the petitioner a flat at Vasant Kunj pursuant to the Vlth Self Financing Housing Scheme announced by the Respondent-Authority in the year 1985 which was restricted only to retired/retiring public servants. The petitioner submitted an application tor registration and allocation of flats on 5.8.85 giving preferences/options for allocation of flat in the ireasngmely (i) Mandakani Enclave, (ii)Kalkaji and (iii) Vasant Kunj (iv) Mukherjee Magar.The petitioner also deposited Registration fee of Rs. 10,000.00 vide Receipt Mo. 004332 dated5.8.1985.

(2.) It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that he was not intimated by the respondent - authority regarding any allotment of the flat under the Vlth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1985, till the year 1994. The petitioner, however, received a letter from the respondent intimating that the flat has been allotted to the petitioner in Dwarka pursuant to draw held on 25.12,1994. On receipt of the aforesaid intimation the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent on 6.4.1994 regarding the allocation of flat under category in Dwarka Block 9 Pocket 1 requesting that the said allotment be cancelled, as the petitioner did not seek for allotment-of a flat in Dwarka which was a allotment under the Vth Scheme and not under the Vlth Scheme under which the petitioner applied for. It was also stated in the-said letter that the name of the petitioner be continued.for further allocation/allotment. On 2.7.1996 a letter-was sent by the respondent to the petitioner referring to the letter of the petitioner dated 6.4.1994 .intimating the petitioner that he may apply for refund of the registration amount as the Scheme had been closed. The petitioner submitted that letter dated 26:8.1996 requesting the respondent authority to cancel his Registration in the Vlth SeIf Finaticing Housing Scheme and demanded refund of Rs. 10,000.00 alongwith interesf thereon. It is also stated that the petitioner went to the office of the respondent for calculating the refund 'but upon such visit it came to his notice that he was allotted a flat at Vasant Kunj about which the petitioner was not informed by the respondent and that he had no knowledge regarding the same. The petitioner then wrote a letter to the respondent on 20.1.1997 requesting the authority to allot the flat. in Category II in Vasant Kunj as allotted- Since no intimation was sent by the respondent/authority the petItioner filed the petition in this court.

(3.) The respondent has contested the suit by filing a counter affidavit contending, infer alia that the petitioner was registered under the Vlth SFS Scheme and after giving a-number of opportunities to the registrants the respondent in the year 1984 decided to close the Schem and on 10.3.94 to 15.3.94 released last and final 144 opportunity to allot a flat under the Vlth SFS Registration Scheme and that while availing the said opportunity the petitioner applied for allotment. It was stated that the petitioner was, however, not successful according to his choice. The petitioner was, however, in that manner allotted with a Category II 3rd Floor Flat in Block 9 Pocket I in Dwarka Residential Scheme vide allocation-cum-demand letter dated 10.3.1994/ 15.3.1994. It is stated that the petitioner did not opt for Dwarka fiat stating that the same was not acceptable to the petitioner and accordingly the same was cancelled. It is, however, stated that in the file of the petitioner it was wrongly mentioned that the allocation application of the petitioner was not traceable and that original registration application had already been attached in File No. F. 125 (189)89/VK/111. It is also stated that the aforesaid file actually belongs to Shri Sandeep Lal who had already been allotted a flat and that, therefore, in view of the aforesaid wrong insertion by the dealing assistant this confusion had taken place and in fact no flat was allotted to the petitioner in the Vasant Kunj area at all.