SATISH CHANDRA SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition filed by the petitioner seeks to challenge the action of the respondent DDA cancelling the allotment of the petitioner made in the draw held on 27th March, 1991. The petitioner also sought writ of mandamus so as to direct the respondent DDA to allot an alternative plot in the developed sector of Phase I, II or III, Rohini at old rates along with interest @ 7% as per the policy of the DDA.

(2.) BRIEF facts stated by the petitioner for claiming the said reliefs are that the petitioner was registered with the DDA under the Rohini residential Scheme, 1981 for allotment of an MIG plot and necessary registration amount was deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner is a veterinary su geon and his job was transferable, due to which he was posted at different peaces at different times. Due to such frequent change of his address, the petitioner at the time of seeking registration under the said scheme had given the address of his brother i. e. C/o Shri G. C. Singh, I-78, ashok Vihar Phase I, Delhi - 110052. The petitioner had also given address of one conce n where his father was employed i. e. Chief Chemist, Sawan sugar Mills District Siwan, Bihar. It is further stated that somewhere in 1983 brother of the petitioner Mr. G. C. Singh got allotment and possession of flat bearing No. 246, Siddharth Enclave, New Delhi -110 014, therefore, he along with his family shifted to the said Siddharth Enclave flat from the earlier residence of Ashok Vihar. Even parents of the petitioner also shifted to this newl acquired flat at Siddharth Enclave. With this change of address of his brother and shifting of parents to the same house, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Assistant Director (Incharge) Rohini, Scheme, DDA intimating the said change of address for all future correspondence and as per the petitioner the said letter was duly received by the respondent DDA vide diary No. 35283 dated 26. 12. 1983. In the said letter it was also intimated that he had appointed his father as general attorney, so that he should be able to deal with the respondent DDA for anything concerning the said plot applied by the petitioner. Photocopy of general power of attorney as executed by the petitioner in favour of his father was also forwarded to the respondent DDA along with the said letter. It is further stated that the respondent DDA failed to record the change of address in their records with the resul no communication was sent to the petitioner by the respondent at the changed address with regard to the allotment-cum-demand letter in respect of allotment of plot bearing No. 54, Pocket 12, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi. The name of the petitioner was included in the draw of lots held by the DDA on 27. 3. 1991, but his allotment-cum-demand letter was sent by the respondent DDA at the two old addresses given by the petitioner at the time of registration, but the said demand letter was never sent to the petitioner at the changed address. The petitioner was totally unaware of the allotment having been made in his favour by the respondent DDA and it is only some time in August, 2004 that he had approached the office of the DDA so as to ascertain his status, after having come to know that two draw of lots were held in that year for the registrants of RRS 1981. The petitioner also made a representation dated 2nd August, 2004 to the Deputy Director, DDA so as to know the fate of the said registration made as long back as in the year 1981. After receiving no response from the respondent DDA to the above said representation, the petitioner appeared in a public hearing before the deputy Director, Rohini on 2nd September, 2004 and it was then revealed to the petitioner that in the draw held on 27. 3. 1991 he was allotted plot bearing No. 54, Pocket 12, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi. After having come to know about the same the petitioner made a representation dated 6. 9. 2004 informing the respondent DDA that he never received any allotment letter from their office. In the month of September, 2006 the petitioner came across the public notice issued by the respondent DDA for attention of the registrants of Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 informing the registrants that the request for change of address will now be entertained by the DDA's rohini Branch only if such applications are submitted along with a copy of fdr and proof of residence. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner had again intimated the change of address vide letter dated 3. 11. 2006 along with the attested copy of FDR, photocopy of the application for change of address dated 26. 12. 1983 and attested copy of passport. On receiving no response from the respondent, the petitioner was constraint to file the present writ petition.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondent DDA, the respondent dda has not denied the fact that the petitioner was declared successful for the allotment of MIG plot No. 54, Pocket 12, Sector 24, measuring 60 sq. mtrs. in Rohini Residential Scheme through the draw held on 27. 3. 1991, but disputed the position of any letter dated 2. 8. 2004 sent by the petitioner intimating the priority numbers as covered under the draw held on 27. 3. 1991. Through an advertisement a specific mention in the advertisement was made as to how the allottee can seek change of his address. The said insertion as carried out by the respondent DDA in the advertisement is reproduced as under:-