DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MADHU MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 31.01.2011 CM NO. 1931/2011 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM NO. 1929/2011 (condonation of Delay) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly. LPA 115/2011 & CM No. 1930/2011 (stay) Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has assailed the order dated 7th January, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition (C) No. 3790/2007 and directing that the respondent herein, Ms. Madhu Mehra's name would be included in the next mini draw of lots which would be held not later than 2 months from the date of the said order and the demand-cum-allotment letter would be issued at the cost as per Change of Address policy of the DDA.

(2.) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the DDA is that the respondent had not written the letter dated 13th October, 1998 about the change of address, mutation and the entries in the original registration Register have been manipulated later on.

(3.) THE case of the respondent is that she had sent a communication dated 13th October, 1998 enclosing therewith death certificate of her husband and informed the change of address from 4154, Naya Bazar, Delhi to A2/105, Sector 8, Rohini, Delhi. She had enclosed with the said letter proof of residential address and the certificate of registration. Along with the said letter, the respondent has placed on record a copy of the postal receipt by which the letter dated 13th October, 1998 was sent by registered post to the appellant-DDA. THE learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act that there is a presumption that the communication was sent to the appellant-DDA. THE appellant does not dispute the genuineness of the postal receipt. Beside this, the original registration Register records the name and address of the respondent. Requisite entries were made in the said register. THE contention of the appellant that these changes have been manipulated and have been backdated is mere allegation and ipse dixit without any substantial basis. Mere statement of the appellant DDA that these entries have been presumably made in connivance with their staff is an unwarranted suspicion or doubt. No one from the staff has been named or blamed.