RAVI DASS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/DDA to issue a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter to him in respect of the earlier allotted flat, i.e., Flat No.41-B (First Floor), Phase-I, Dwarka, Delhi, at the old cost and if the same is not available, then to direct the respondent/DDA to allot him an alternative flat in the same area by holding a mini draw of lots at the old cost.

(2.) IN a nutshell, the facts of the case are that in the year 1989, respondent/DDA had floated a housing scheme known as Ambedkar Awas Yojna, 1989, which was specifically meant for applicants under the category of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner stated that being an eligible applicant, he got himself registered under the aforesaid Scheme. At the relevant time, he was working as an Executive Engineer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and even presently is working as an Engineer-in-Chief in the same department. At the time of registration, the petitioner had furnished two addresses as required to be filled up by applicants in columns 7 & 8 of the application form. IN column 7, the postal address furnished by the petitioner for correspondence was, "DDA Flat No.16, Pocket A3, Sector- 7, Rohini, Delhi". IN column 8, the permanent address furnished by the petitioner was "Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi". On 23.10.1996, the petitioner had communicated to the respondent/DDA that he had shifted his residence from the previous residential address to "Flat No.A-3/79, Sector 8, Rohini Delhi" (Annexure P- 2). However, the petitioner has not placed on record, the proof of dispatch of the aforesaid letter.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent/DDA relies on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/DDA to submit that the demand-cum-allotment letter bearing block dates 29th July to 2nd August, 1999 was dispatched to the petitioner at his postal address mentioned by him in the registration form, but the same was received back as ,,undelivered. He further states that a Press Notice had been issued and got published by the respondent/DDA in leading newspapers on 19.10.2002, whereby all the successful allottees of various draws, who had not received their respective demand-cum-allotment letters, were called upon to collect the same from the office of the respondent/DDA within 15 days from the date of publication of the above notice. He contends that despite the aforesaid Press Notice, the petitioner did not contact the respondent/DDA and as a result, the allotment of the flat made in his favour stood cancelled on account of non- response/non-payment. He further states that the petitioner has slept over the present case for almost two decades as he did not bother to inquire about the status of his registration, nor did the respondent/DDA receive the letter dated 23.10.1996, purportedly written by the petitioner informing DDA about the change of his residential address.