JAI BHAGWAN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . With the consent of counsel for the parties, present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) THE facts as set out in the writ petition are that petitioner was registered under Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 for allotment of an MIG plot on making payment of the registration deposit. At the time of registration, petitioner had given address of CD/57D, G -8, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, where he was residing at that point of time. The priority number of the petitioner matured and consequently on 21.11.2003 petitioner was allotted plot bearing No. 551, Pocket C -V, Sector -28, measuring 60.000 sq. mtrs. in Rohini Phase IV, Residential Scheme at a total cost of Rs.3,71,520/ - and a demand letter dated 21.11.2003 was issued to the petitioner. The premium of plot was payable in three instalments. The demand/ allotment letter was sent at the address available with the DDA which was returned to the DDA as undelivered as by that time petitioner had shifted his residence at A -3/242, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Petitioner informed the DDA with regard to change of address on 09.02.2004, which was received by the DDA vide diary no. 7891. Along with this letter petitioner enclosed photographs of his ration card as well as election card, in support of his proof of new address. By this time date for making the first instalment i.e. 20.01.2004 had lapsed. The DDA while acknowledging the letter dated 09.02.2004, called upon the petitioner by its communication dated 26.02.2004 to furnish residential proof duly attested and photocopy of the FDR duly attested. The DDA did not send a fresh demand/ allotment letter at the fresh address of the petitioner and cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on 09.03.2004 without issuing any show cause notice and without granting any opportunity of hearing. This cancellation letter was also sent at the old address, despite the petitioner having informed DDA about the change of his address which was available with DDA. This letter too was returned undelivered. On 28.06.2004 petitioner again submitted documents to DDA i.e. copy of the FDR as well as copy of the election card, which were duly acknowledged by the DDA vide receipt no. 33375. It is the case of the petitioner that no further action was taken by the DDA, despite petitioner's attempts to follow up the matter with the DDA. Vide communication dated 31.05.2004 upon having learnt that an allotment was made in favour of the petitioner, petitioner requested the Deputy Director, Rohini for a photocopy of the demand/allotment letter which had not been received by him due to change of address. He further requested the DDA in case cancellation of the allotment had been made, the same should be restored for which he was ready to pay restoration charges and requested that a demand letter be issued to him. Thereafter representation was made by the petitioner to the DDA on 08.08.2005 wherein it was pointed out that he had visited the office of the DDA several times, but a duplicate allotment letter was not issued to him. Petitioner appeared in the public hearing on 26.12.2005 which also did not yield any favourable result. On 27.01.2006 petitioner received a letter from the DDA calling upon him to attend the office on any working day along with certain documents. Petitioner being approximately 74 years of age, unwell at that point of time and requested DDA for two months time to attend the office, as he had been advised bed rest by the doctor. The petitioner again appeared in the public hearing on 23.03.2006 along with necessary documents. On 15.09.2006, petitioner was informed that his case was not covered under the policy dated 24.06.2005 formulated by DDA and his request was turned down. Thereafter petitioner moved an application dated 16.10.2006 under Right to Information Act as also approached the Legal Aid Society of Delhi High Court in the year 2009 for legal advice, and thereafter filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IN short, the submission of counsel for the petitioner is that in case a duplicate demand/ allotment letter had been handed over to him, petitioner would have made the payment without any loss of time. He also submits that despite the DDA having received information with regard to change of address, DDA did not bother to correspond with him and in fact the cancellation letter was also sent by the DDA at the old address which shows that there was complete non application of mind on the part of the DDA. In these circumstances while relying on a decision of this Court on similar facts in the case of Jagdish Chopra Vs. DDA WP(C) No. 20246/2005, petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 15.06.2006 and seeks a writ of mandamus directing DDA to hand over plot measuring 60.000 sq. mtrs. in Rohini, Phase -IV Residential Scheme at the costs of Rs.3,70,520/ - subject to payment of cancellation charges and interest from the period starting from 28.01.2004 to 31.05.2004, when he made an application for restoration and also from 15.09.2006 to 15.09.2009 when the present petition was filed, as three years period was taken and as there is no plausible explanation by the petitioner for not moving this Court expeditiously.