NIRMALA DEVI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , J.(Oral)

(2.) THE cussed and almost contemtuous stand of the respondent-DDA in not following the law laid down by this Court on numerous occasions has once again compelled a citizen to knock the doors of this Court for Justice. THE factual matrix of the case is limited. Respondent announced a New Pattern Registration Scheme,1979 and the petitioner registered herself under the scheme giving her residential address as House No.719, Baba Kharag Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001. In 1987, the petitioner shifted to house No.137, Panjteerthi, Jammu (Tawi) and sent letters on 5.8.1987 and 12.9.1987 to the respondent requesting for change of address which was duly received by the respondent on 15.9.1987. However, the respondent failed to change the address in its records. Since the petitioner did not receive any intimation regarding allotment to her, the petitioner made enquiries in March,1999 and came to know that a flat bearing No.D-254, Sector-12, Phase-1, Dwarka had already been allotted to her but the allotment letter had been sent at the old address and had been returned back un-delivered. THE petitioner on 30.3.1999 made representation requesting for the duplicate demand letter. This representation was followed up by representation made in September and November,1999. THE petitioner received a letter dated 28.2.2000 enclosing a copy of the earlier demand letter. THE petitioner thereafter deposited the demanded amount and requested for possession. THE petitioner was shocked to receive a letter dated 12.5.2000 asking the petitioner to pay a balance amount of Rs.3,33,174/68 on account of balance cost of the flat apart from Rs.7,46,124/- already deposited. THE petitioner made a representation against the same and deposited documents for grant of possession. On 18.5.2001 in response to the representation of the petitioner, petitioner received a letter dated 22.11.2000 asking her to deposit a sum of Rs.1,91,956/- on account of interest. THE petitioner protested against the same since there was no question of payment of interest as the petitioner had deposited the full amount within time. On 11.7.2001 the petitioner was again asked to deposit a reduced sum of Rs.1,39,327/- on account of interest and restoration charges. THE petitioner made a representation on 18.3.2002 to the respondent and in response received a letter dated 29.4.2002 stating that on request of the petitioner a sum of Rs.36,081/- had been reduced and that she should now deposit Rs.l,03,246/~ with interest and restoration charges. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of this demand towards what is stated to be interest. In the counter affidavit, the aforesaid factual position is not disputed though it is stated that the DDA did not change address of the petitioner since petitioner failed to furnish any documentary evidence. It is further stated in the counter affidavit and contended at bar that amount being demanded towards interest is on account of the blocked capital of the respondent. THE original records have also been produced in the court today. It is relevant to note that it is not disputed that there was no requirement under the Scheme for sending any proof of change of address. All that was required was to sent a change of address which was admittedly done by the petitioner. Moreover, the submission made in the counter affidavit about the lack of submission of any document by the petitioner as proof of change of address is clearly an after thought on part of the respondent at this stage. In CW No.4219/1998 Raj Rani Vs. DDA, decided on 14.08.2002, this aspect was considered and it is noticed that the standard clauses in these brochures only require that in case of change of address the same should be communicated by sending a letter to the concerned Department with a copy endorsed to the Accounts Officer. THEre is no requirement of a copy of Ration Card. It will be relevant to re-produce the noting made on 26.3.2000 by the concerned Authority.