SANTOSH KUMARI KHANNA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein registered herself with the respondent/DDA under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (in short 'NPRS-1979') for allotment of a MIG flat on making payment of the registration deposit on 27.09.1979. At the time of submitting the application for registration, she had furnished three addresses. The residential address furnished by the petitioner was, House No.6/15-A, Vijay Nagar, Double Storey, Delhi, where she was residing at the relevant time. Two occupational addresses were given by the petitioner, one was MC Primary School, Masjid Tehwarkhan, Delhi-110006, where she was working as a teacher at that time and from where she had retired on 29.04.2002, the second occupational address was that of her husband, namely, Shri Khushal Chand Khanna, c/o India Shock Absorbers (Regd.), Shop No.45, Khanna Market, Tis Hazari, Delhi, where he was working at the relevant time and continues to work therefrom till date. In September, 1999, the petitioner had changed her residential address from House No.6/15-A, Vijay Nagar, Double Storey, Delhi, to C-1/46, Malka Ganj, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi, but admittedly, she did not inform the respondent/DDA about the change of address. In the meantime, the priority of the petitioner had matured and her name was included in the draw of lots held by the respondent/DDA on 27.09.1999. In the aforesaid draw of lots, the petitioner was allotted a MIG flat bearing No.13, Pocket-1, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi and a demand-cum-allotment letter bearing block dates 29.12.1999-31.12.1999 was issued to her at the residential address provided by her in her application form, i.e., House No.6/15-A, Vijay Nagar, Double Storey, Delhi. As the petitioner had changed her residence from the aforesaid address in September, 1999, the said demand-cum-allotment letter was not received by her and instead it was returned undelivered to the respondent/DDA with the remarks, "left/not available". Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receiving the undelivered allotment letter, the respondent/DDA did not make any effort to re-despatch the same to either the occupational address of the petitioner or that of her husband, which were available in its records. Instead of redirecting the allotment letter to the aforesaid occupational addresses, the respondent/DDA proceeded to cancel the allotment without even issuing a notice to show cause to the petitioner. He submits that sometime in July 2011, the petitioner came to know that all the registrants of the NPRS-1979 had been made allotments. She, therefore, visited the office of the respondent/DDA to enquire as to the status of her allotment and on 01.08.2011, she was informed that she had been allotted the MIG flat mentioned hereinabove in September, 1999 and thereafter it was cancelled by the respondent/DDA on account of non-payment of amount as demanded in the demand-cum-allotment letter.

(2.) On coming to know about the cancellation of the allotment of the flat made in her favour, the petitioner submitted representations to the Commissioner (Housing) and the Director (Housing), DDA, requesting that she be allotted an alternative flat since the cancellation of the earlier allotment done by the respondent/DDA was for no fault that could be attributed to her. The present petition is occasioned as it is the stand of the petitioner that the representations made by her did not find favour with the respondent/DDA and remained unanswered.

(3.) In support of his submission that the petitioner is entitled to an allotment of a flat at the old cost prevalent at the time of the original allotment alongwith simple interest payable from the date of the original allotment till the date of issue of a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on an office order dated 25.02.2005 issued by the respondent/DDA (Annexure P-3). The case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in support of the present case is as below:-