DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SANMUKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the submissions made therein the application is allowed and the delay of 227 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) THE respondent before us Mr. Sanmukh Singh got himself registered for allotment of a residential flat from DDA under its New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS -1979). In the application form, he disclosed his residential address to be "19H, Arjun Nagar (near Green Park), New Delhi -16" and his occupational address as "Punjab & Sind Bank, Naraina, New Delhi". On the turn of the respondent maturing for allotment, he was allotted Flat No. 70 (Second Floor), Pocket 5, Sector -12, Dwarka Phase -I, New Delhi. The demand -cum -allotment letter, however, was sent to him at a wrong address inasmuch the house number was given as "14H" instead of "19H". As a result, the respondent did not receive the aforesaid letter. The allotment was cancelled by the appellant DDA on account of non -payment of the balance sale consideration. In the year 2010, the respondent came to know that the list of those who were allotted flats under NPRS -Scheme, 1979 was available on the website of DDA. On accessing the aforesaid website, he found that his address had been wrongly entered as 14H, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. He, therefore, made a representation dated 25.10.2010 to DDA pointing out the aforesaid mistake and seeking allotment of another flat to him. That having not been done, a writ petition was filed by him. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 12.1.2012 directed the appellant to allot an MIG Flat to the respondent at the old cost prevalent at the time of allotment along with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of original allotment till the date of filing of the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the DDA is before us by way of this appeal. Vide order dated 25.2.2013, we asked the appellant to file a copy of the application form submitted by the respondent and also directed the respondent to file an affidavit disclosing therein the time upto which he was residing in House No. 19H, Arjun Nagar (near Green Park), New Delhi. He was also directed to file proof of his residing in the aforesaid house at the time of registration.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments before the learned Single Judge, DDA submitted that since the postal authorities had reported that "No such Block exists", the allotment was rightly cancelled after issuing public notice in this regard in the newspapers. The respondent has placed on record photocopies of the driving license and Election Identity Card, both of which bear address of 19H, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. These documents clearly show that the address given in the application was a correct address. There is Block H in Arjun Nagar and the report of the postal authorities, when they recorded that no such Block existed in the locality, was incorrect. As regards, issue of public notice, in our opinion, though issue of public notice by way of advertisements in the newspapers is certainly a factor to be taken into consideration, issue of such notice did not absolve the DDA from its duty of sending the Demand -cum -Allotment Letter at the correct address disclosed by the registrant. The public notice could have been in addition to and not in substitution of the personal notice required to be sent to the allottee at the address disclosed by him. Therefore, in our opinion, the DDA was wholly unjustified in cancelling the allotment made to the respondent.