SUBHASH CHANDER CHADHA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, named above, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India averring that the petitioner applied for and got himself registered for the allotment of a Middle Income Group (MIG) flat under the 'New Pettern Registration Scheme', 1979 launched by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter refered to as 'the DDA). It is stated that after a long wait of 10 years, the petitioner, in the draw of lots, held by the respondent DDA on 31st August, 1989 was allotted a third floor flat, bearing No.123-D, Pocket A and B, Group 3 and 4, situated at Dilshad Garden, Delhi at a cost of Rs.1,35,700.00 on cash down basis. It is stated that after the draw of lots held on 31st August, 1989 a demand-cum-allotment letter was also prepared in the name of the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned flat but the same could not be sent to him as it was noticed by the concerned authorities that the above mentioned flat had already been allotted to one Shri Om Prakash Sadana much before, i.e., on 25th July, 1989 who had even taken possession of the same on 9th January, 1990.

(2.) It is averred that as per the policy of DDA a victim of 'double allotment' is considered for an allotment of a new flat on the same floor in the same area and in the same zone in the next draw and thereafter the allotted flat, drawn in his favour is given t him at the same cost at which the earlier flat was allotted to him.

(3.) It is further stated that the fact about the allotment of the above mentioned flat at Dilshad Garden was never intimated to the petitioner nor the petitioner was informed about the said allotment being a case of 'double allotment'. It is alleged that the respondent DDA in violation of its own policy, did not even consider the petitioner for allotment of another flat in the subsequent draw of lots. It is stated that by the end of the year 1995 of DDA had made allotment of flats to practically most of the persons registered under the above said Scheme of 1979. On learning the same, the petitioner made a representation to DDA on 31st January, 1996 stating therein as to why he had not been allotted a flat. He requested that he should be intimated about the status of his registration. But no reply to his above said representation was given by the respondent DDA. The petitioner ultimately visited the office of the Vice Chairman of the respondent personally and to his utter shock and surprise he was orally informed by the officials of the respondent DDA about the allotment of the above said flat at Dilshad Garden in the draw of lots held on 31st August, 1989 and was also informed that the allotment-cum-demand letter thereof was not issued to him being a case of 'double allotment'. On learning the above facts, the petitioner immediately made another representation on 2nd February, 1996 pointing out the above facts and requesting that as per the policy of the DDA, he should be considered for allotment of a flat on the same floor in the same area and in the same Zone immediately. The petitioner also stated in the above said representation that a number of third floor flats in Pocket-C, Jhilmil, Phase-II, which fell in the same Zone, were lying vacant and, therefore, one of those flats be allotted in his favour. The grievance of the petitioner in nutshell is that no action has been taken by the officials of the respondent DDA on his above said representation. It has been inter-alia prayed by the petitioner that a mandamus be issued to the respondent DDA commanding the respondent to forthwith allot flat No.65-D, Pocket-C, Phase-II, Jhilmil at the same cost at which the earlier flat in the same area was allotted to him in the draw of lots held on 31st August, 1989 and the possession of the same be also given to him immediately. The petitioner has also claimed the cost of these proceedings.