DEEP CHAND Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.6040/2011. The writ petition was dismissed by virtue of the impugned order primarily on the ground of delay.

(2.) THE appellant had been registered for an LIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme- 1979 floated by the respondent DDA. In 1991 the appellant was allotted Flat No.792, Pocket-D at Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Unfortunately, the appellant had, in the meanwhile, changed his address and consequently the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter in respect of the said flat was sent by the respondent DDA at the wrong address and was never been received by the appellant.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge observed that though the respondent DDA had a policy of giving a second chance but the appellant having allowed the allotment in the year 1992 in his favour to lapse cannot be said to be now eligible under the said policy after over 14 years. The learned Single Judge also observed that the appellant herein had relied on the notings in the file of the DDA which were favourable to him. However, the learned Single Judge, in our view, correctly held that merely because some of the officials of the DDA had made notings favourable to the appellant, the same would not entitle him to relief when the said favourable notings did not find favour with the higher officials who did not agree with the claim of the appellant. The reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station vs. DDA, (2009) 1 SCC 180 and Jasbir Singh Chhabra vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 4 SCC 192, in this regard, are apposite.