SATNAM DASS NARANG Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant got himself registered with Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for allotment of an LIG flat under its New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS). At the time of registration, the appellant was residing at D-49, Sudarshan Park, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi and was working as a Pharmacist with Delhi Administration and posted at its dispensary at South Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Accordingly, at the time of registration, the appellant gave his residential address at D-49, Sudarshan Park, New Delhi and occupational address as Delhi Administration Dispensary, Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The appellant shifted from D-49, Sudarshan Park, New Delhi, to 242, Faridabad, Haryana and intimated the change of address to the respondent DDA, vide letter dated 12 th March, 1985. The change of address was duly incorporated in the record of the respondent. An LIG flat bearing No. 340, Category-L, Ground Floor, Bindapur, Delhi, was allotted to the appellant in the draw held on 5 th October, 1993 and the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him at residential address given at the time of registration.

(2.) The appellant claims to have verified the status of his allotment on the website of the respondent in March-April, 2012 and came to know about the allotment of flat at Bindapur. On visiting the office of respondent, he came to know that the allotment of flat at Bindapur had been cancelled and he was reallotted a flat at Kondi Gharoli, which allotment also came to be cancelled in the circumstances mentioned above. The grievance of the appellant is that no effort was made by the respondent either to send the demand-cum-allotment letter to his Head Office, i.e. Directorate of Health Services or to ascertain the place of his posting from the Headquarter, though the address of the Head Office was available on the income certificate which he had filed along with the application for registration. Another grievance of the appellant is that the show-cause notice dated 19.01.1996 was not sent to his occupational address.

(3.) The cancellation of the allotment made to him, was challenged by the appellant by way of CWP No.6866/2012, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in limine on 2 nd November, 2012. Being aggrieved from dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.