LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-153

ASHWANI KUMAR VIJ Vs. D.D.A.

Decided On April 12, 2010
Ashwani Kumar Vij Appellant
V/S
D.D.A. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of Counsel for the parties, writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as set out in the present petition, are that the petitioner had made an application under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, to the DDA, for allotment of an LIG flat, for which the necessary registration fee in the sum of Rs. 1500/- was deposited by the petitioner on 17.5.1980. By a communication dated 24.8.1984, petitioner requested DDA to convert the existing registration from LIG to MIG category as the income of the petitioner had increased. Petitioner was called upon by the DDA to submit additional documents, which were submitted by the petitioner. By a communication dated 30.9.1985, DDA made a demand in the sum of Rs. 4643/- to enable them to convert the registration from LIG to MIG. The petitioner is stated to have deposited Rs. 4643/- on 16.10.1985 in the Central Bank of India. The respondent, consequent thereto, issued a fresh registration No. 46008 in the change of category from LIG to MIG. The petitioner, thereafter, waited endlessly in the hope of allotment letter which was never received by him. The petitioner also in the meanwhile made numerous visits to the office of the DDA but to no effect. Petitioner thereafter filed the present petition in the year 2008.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA wherein it is stated that petitioner was declared successful in the draw held in the year 2003 and was allotted an MIG flat bearing No.9, Second Floor, Sector 24, Pocket IV, Rohini, Delhi, through a computerize draw held on 31.10.2003 on cash down basis. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that a demand-cum-allotment letter for the block dates 7.1.2004-15.1.2004 was despatched to the petitioner on 12.1.2004 through speed post at his address i.e. 3/242, Janakpuri, New Delhi. It is also stated that the demand-cum-allotment letter was not received back undelivered by the respondent.