LAVNEET KAUR BHATIA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sh. Raghubir Singh, husband of the appellant got himself registered with the respondent-DDA for allotment of an MIG flat. At the time of registration, Sh. Raghubir Singh gave his address as A-241, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Sh. Raghubir Singh expired on 3 rd January, 1989 and the case of the appellant is that vide letter dated 25 th January, 1989, informed the respondent about his death and sought transfer of the said registration in her name. In a draw of lots held in the year 1999, a flat was allotted in the name of late Sh. Raghubir Singh and the allotment letter was sent at the address given in the registration form. On DDA publishing a notice in the newspaper stating therein that MIG priority was over, the appellant submitted a representation stating therein that she had not received any allotment against the aforesaid registration and therefore an MIG flat be allotted to her. A show cause notice dated 17.10.2002 in the meanwhile, was issued by the respondent in the name of Sh. Raghubir Singh and was sent at the same address i.e., A2/41, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Since the said show cause notice also remained unserved, the allotment made in the name of the husband of the appellant was cancelled by the DDA.

(2.) Being aggrieved from non-allotment of a flat to her, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) 4919/2007. The said petition having been dismissed, she is before us by way of this appeal.

(3.) The only question which arises for our consideration in this case is as to whether the change of address was ever intimated by the appellant or by her husband to DDA at any point of time. Her case is that she sent letter dated 25.01.1989 to DDA in which her address was B-68, Rampuri, Near Surya Nagar, Gaziabad, UP which is also stated to be her present address. In its counter affidavit DDA has emphatically denied having received the aforesaid letter dated 25.01.1989. In view of the stand taken by the DDA in the counter affidavit with respect to the letter dated 25.01.1989 the question as to whether the said letter was actually delivered to DDA or not, becomes a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in a writ petition since it would require recording of evidence. For this reason alone the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.