PREM PRAKASH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner got himself registered under the 1979 New Pattern Registration scheme for allotment of one MIG flat. The petitioner was allotted registration no. 29139. The address given by the petitioner at the time of registration was ?c/o Roshan Lall Gupta, WZ-406c, Hari Nagar, Clock Towar, New Delhi? The said shri Roshan Lall Gupta is stated to be the brother of the petitioner?s wife. Admittedly the petitioner was allotted flat bearing No. 209, Sector-17, Pocket-A, dwarka in the year 2003. Demand-cum-allotment letter was sent by the respondent dda to the petitioner on three different occasions by speed post. On each occasion the address on which the communication was sent was ?prem Prakash WZ-406c, Hari Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Delhi?. Admittedly on each of these occasions the demand-cum-allotment letter was returned to the DDA with remark ?no such name WZ-406-C Janak Park, New Delhi-64?. Thereafter the respondent issued a letter of cancellation dated 30. 12. 2003 showing the address as provided by the petitioner and the same was received by the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that thereafter he attended public hearings held by the respondent in the years 2005 and 2006 but to no avail. He has thereafter filed this petition seeking quashing of the letter of cancellation dated 30. 12. 2003 and a mandamus to direct the respondent to allot one MIG flat to the petitioner. The petitioner relies on the policy of the DDA contained in Office order dated 25. 2. 2005 which states that in cases where change of address was intimated by the registrants but erroneously not recorded by the DDA and demand cum allotment letter was sent at the wrong address, and the allottee approaches the DDA within a period of four years from the date of allotment, he/she will be allotted a flat at the old cost, prevalent at the time when the priority of the allottee matured. However, in cases where such intimation, viz, demand-cum-allotment letter had been issued but the allottee had not approached the DDA within a period of four years from the date of allotment the allottee would be considered for allotment of flat with the old cost prevalent at the time of original allotment with 12% simple interest with effect from the date of original allotment to the date of issuance of a fresh demand cum allotment letter.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner is making a mountain of a mole by over emphasizing the relevance of ?c/o???? as mentioned by the petitioner in the application form while giving his address. Counsel for the respondent submits that in three successive letters issued by the petitioner in 2005 and 2006, which are placed at pages 22, 24 and 26 of the record, the petitioner had himself given his address as ?prem Prakash WZ 406-C, Hari nagar,clock Tower, New Delhi-64. ? The petitioner had not written ?c/o Roshan lall Gupta? since the same is not of any relevance. It is further submitted that the petitioner, despite being served with the cancellation letter dated 30. 12. 2003 slept over his rights and did not take any steps before filing this petition in the year 2006.