RAJPAL SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner prays for quashing the decision of the Respondent Delhi Development Authority ("DDA?) communicated by a letter dated 13th October 2006 rejecting his request for allotment of an LIG flat under the Ambedkar Awas Yojna, 1989 ("AAY"). The Petitioner prays for a mandamus to the DDA to allot him an alternative flat in the same area/zone at the old cost.

(2.) The Petitioner, who belongs to scheduled caste, was at the time of applying for an LIG flat under the AAY, staying in an unauthorised colony. At that point in time no house number had been allotted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD") and the Petitioner gave his residential address as Rajeev Gali, Nehru Vihar, Dayalpur, Delhi-110094. The Petitioner's priority matured in 2003. In the draw of lots held on 31st October 2003, he was allotted Flat No. 300, Pocket 9, Nasirpur (Dwarka), Delhi. The demand-cum-allotment letter ("DAL"), issued on 14th January 2004 with a last date of payment as 12th June 2004, was sent to the Petitioner by the DDA on two occasions at the same incomplete address and was returned unserved with the remark "incomplete address.? According to the Petitioner, the file noting dated 19th April 2004 showed that the DDA decided to keep the case pending. This is, however, disputed by the DDA which states that upon non-payment of the amount by the time stipulated in the DAL, the allotment stood automatically cancelled.

(3.) The Petitioner states that on 4th April 2005, he personally visited the office of the DDA to ascertain the status of his allotment. He came to know that in the year 2004, a DAL had been issued to him which had been received back undelivered. The Petitioner then made a representation on 12th April 2005 requesting that he should be re-issued the DAL at the complete address given by him since the house number, block number and gali number had since been provided by the MCD. The Petitioner states that the DDA, however, sent a letter dated 24th May 2005 informing him that since the date by which the amount demanded under the DAL had to be paid had expired and no payment had been made by the Petitioner, the allotment already stood cancelled and that he could apply for refund of the registration money. The Petitioner thereafter appeared at a public hearing but his request was again rejected.