LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-142

BHAGIRATH CHOUDRI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On August 16, 2012
BHAGIRATH CHOUDRI Appellant
V/S
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allotment of an MIG Flat at the cost prevalent in March, 2004 under the 'Tail End Priority Policy' is sought by the petitioner in this petition.

(2.) Respondent- DDA vide its Communication of 10 th October, 1990 (Annexure P-4) had cancelled the allotment of flat No. 686, Block/Pocket GH-14 G-17 in Paschim Vihar, Delhi (henceforth referred to as the 'flat in question'), while permitting the petitioner to pay the cancellation charges within a fortnight so that petitioner's registration in respect of the flat in question is kept intact while keeping the petitioner's seniority at the 'Tail End'. In pursuance to the aforesaid Communication, the petitioner had deposited the cancellation charges. In the explanation for the delay in depositing the cancellation charges, the petitioner had urged the respondent- DDA to allot an alternate flat to the petitioner in next draw of lots instead of at 'Tail End'. In this regard, Representations/ Reminders were sent by the petitioner in December, 1990 and April, 1991 (Annexures- P-8 & P-9) to the respondent-DDA, which according to the petitioner were not responded to.

(3.) Through Indian Express newspaper of 12 th February, 1994 petitioner claims to have learnt about the advertisement of the respondent requiring the registrants to start pooling their financial resources for making timely payments and accordingly, the petitioner had made Representations in February, 1994 and December, 1994 (Annexure P-10 & P-11) followed by a Reminder in August, 1995 (Annexure P-12). When according to the petitioner, there was no response to the aforesaid Representations/Reminders, further Reminder was sent by the petitioner in September, 1996 (Annexure P-13) and again in February, 1998 (Annexure P-14) to the respondent-DDA but with no response. As per the petitioner, he had retired in December, 2000 and after a lull of about four years, he had again sent another Reminder in July, 2004 (Annexure P-15) to the respondent but to no avail.