RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition seeking directions to the respondent to allot an MIG flat at Dwarka was dismissed, the appellant has preferred the appeal in hand.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the appellant got registered with the respondent (hereafter "DDA") for allotment of an MIG flat under IVth Registration Scheme on New Pattern, 1979 for allotment of flats to low and middle income registrants, under MIG, LIG and Janta Categories on 22.09.1979 and deposited Rs. 4,500/- for an MIG flat. At that time, the appellant's declared residential address was no. 1663, Gali Madarsa, Mir Jumla, Lal Quan, Delhi-110006. He was issued the certificate of registration on 09.05.1980. DDA prepared the priority list in the year 1984 and the appellant's priority No. was 31109. By letter dated 06.08.1998, the appellant furnished his fresh residential address as C-1/330, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi110053 to the respondent. A draw of lots was conducted by DDA on 19.12.2001 and flat no. 329, Sector 17, Pocket-A, Phase-II, Dwarka on cash down basis was allotted to the appellant. The DDA issued demand-cum-allotment letter dated 18.01.2002. As the appellant did not respond, DDA issued a show cause notice dated 13.08.2003 and dispatched it through speed post. The appellant complained that neither the demand-cam-allotment letter dated 18.01.2002 nor the show cause notice dated 13.08.2003 was received by him. He alleged that it is only on 23.09.2010 when he made a personal visit to the office of the DDA he became aware that he was allotted a flat but could not gather any further detail and that, it is only in response to an RTI application dated 10.01.2011, he was by communication dated 14.03.2011 informed that the allotment of the subject flat was cancelled due to non-payment.

(3.) The appellant filed the writ petition in March, 2016 claiming directions to the respondent/DDA. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on two counts, taking note of the status report filed on behalf of the respondent. Firstly, the material furnished by the DDA in its status report reflected that the demand cum allotment letter dated 18.01.2002 and the show cause notice 14.08.2003 (actually 13.08.2003 and dispatched on 14.08.2003), were sent through speed post and they attracted the presumption in law of their due delivery. On the second aspect, learned Single Judge observed that the petition suffered from delays and laches inasmuch as the draw of lots was held on 19.12.2001 and according to the appellant, he had even moved an RTI application in June, 2009 to find the status and therefore, the delay in approaching the Court in the year 2016 was unexplained.