RAMESHWARI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) In this case in the year 1979, husband of the petitioner had registered himself under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 for allotment of an LIG flat vide registration No.6769 on payment of Rs.1500/- towards registration deposit. The husband of the petitioner had mentioned his residential address as A-37, Arya Samaj, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi 110 015 for future correspondence. It is the case of the petitioner that since the number of flats available for allotment with the DDA were far less than the number of registrants under the Scheme, therefore, the allotments were being made at a very slow pace and it took DDA more than 17 years to exhaust the entire list of allottees registered under the LIG Category. It is also stated in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner expired on 15.08.2006. During his lifetime, the petitioner s husband did not receive any communication from the DDA and it is only after the demise of her husband, when petitioner was going through some old papers and documents in the year 2009 she learnt that her deceased husband had registered himself with the DDA for allotment of a LIG flat. The petitioner appeared in the public hearing forum of the respondent, to enquire about the status of her registration when she learnt that the priority had matured as far back as in the year 2000 and petitioner s husband had been allotted a LIG flat in the draw held on 11.02.2000, i.e., Flat No. 547, Ground Floor, Pocket-I, Phase-II, Sector 14, Dwarka, Delhi and the said flat stood cancelled on account of nonpayment.

(3.) On enquiry she learnt that a demand cum allotment letter had been sent in the name of her husband at an incorrect address being A-37, Arya Samaj, Kirtnaga, New Delhi, instead of A-37, Arya Samaj, Kirti Nagar, Delhi. The demand cum allotment letter was returned back undelivered to the DDA. The petitioner approached the respondent and on respondent s advise applied for mutation in her own name and submitted all the requisite documents in regard to mutation along with a representation to the respondent on 13.11.2009. It is submitted that despite several oral requests and another representation made to respondent by the petitioner, the respondent DDA informed the petitioner that the said flat had been cancelled. Ms.Kapoor, submits that the case of the petitioner is covered under the wrong address policy of the DDA and she is entitled to allotment of a LIG flat.