DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent before us obtained registration with the appellant DDA under its New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS-1979) for allotment of an MIG flat. The residential address disclosed by the appellant in the application form was 6/15-A, Vijay Nagar, Double Storey, Delhi, where she was residing at that time. Two occupational addresses were also given by her one of the place where, he was working as a teacher at that time and from where she retired on 29th April, 2002 and the other of the place where her husband was working at that time and where he still continues to work.

(2.) In September, 1989, the respondent changed her residential address to C-1/46, Malka Ganj, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi, but did not intimate the change of address to the DDA. On the priority accorded to the respondent maturing, she was allotted an MIG flat by the DDA and a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 29.12.1999 31.12.1999 was sent to the residential address disclosed in the application form. Since the respondent had already shifted from there, the aforesaid letter could not be delivered. No attempt was made by the appellant DDA to send the demand-cum-allotment letter to the occupational addresses given by the respondent. In July 2011, the respondent came to know that all the registrants in NPRS-1979 had been made allotment. On making enquiry from DDA, she was informed that an MIG flat was allotted to her in September, 1999 and the allotment was cancelled due to nonpayment of the balance consideration. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the allotment made to her.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 12th April, 2012, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to hold mini draw of lots for allotment of flat to the respondent and charge cost of the flat prevalent at the time of original allotment along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of original allotment, till the date of issue of new demand-cum-allotment letter. In passing this order, learned Single Judge took the view that since the demand-cum-allotment letter sent at the residential address had been received back undelivered, it was incumbent upon the appellant to send the said letter to the occupational addresses of the respondent available in its record. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.