A P SHARMA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

(2.) The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus for allotment of flat in New Pattern Registration Scheme of 1979. The petitioner claims that he had already deposited a sum of Rs.1500.00 at the time of booking in the year 1979. The petitioner was allotted flat (LIG) No.A-3/182-D, Kondli. Delhi under the said scheme, as per the list released by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the balance amount payable for allotment and handing over the possession of the fiat.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed. Rejoinder has also been filed. Essential facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be briefly noted. The petitioner had got himself registered for a L.I.G. flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, vide registration No.55046, priority No.32673, after making a deposit of Rs. 1500.00 The petitioner subsequently got this registration transferred to the expandable housing scheme which was announced in the year 1995. The said scheme provided for switching over from New Pattern Scheme 1979 to the expandable Scheme. The petitioner under the expandable housing scheme, was allotted a type-A flat being flat No.59, Sector-22, Pocket-D, Rohini, Delhi. The demand letter was issued to petitioner on 15.5.1995. The said demand letter was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks "unclaimed". As the petitioner failed to make the payment under the expandable housing scheme, to which his registration had been transferred, the allotment of the flat stood cancelled. However, inadvertently the petitioner's name was not deleted from the information fed for computerised draw of lot. As a consequence, petitioner was included in the draw of lots and a flat bearing No.l82-D, first floor, Pocket-A-3, Kondli Gharoli was allocated to him as per the draw of lots. This allotment was a result of the inadvertent mistake, since the petitioner was already allotted a flat in Rohini under the expandable housing scheme. The respondents accordingly did not issue the demand letter for the LIG Flat in Kondli, Gharoli.