KAILASH CHANDER Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN 1980, the petitioner Mr. Kailash Chander deposited Rs. 4,500/- with the DDA for allotment of a flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. In 2001, the petitioner was allotted flat No. 390, second floor, Sector-17, Pocket-A, Phase-2, Dwarka on hire purchase basis and a demand-cum-allotment letter with dates 26 December, 2001-31 December, 2001 was issued and sent to the petitioner by the registered post at A-8/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

(2.) THE petitioner states that he had never received the said letter and as per the file of the DDA, the postal envelope was received back undelivered with remarks "left W/A", which as per the respondent DDA means "left without address". It is, however, the case of the petitioner that he has always been residing with his father at A-8/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner has filed on record, documents in support of the said contention in the form of water bills issued by Delhi Jal Board and property tax returns filed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The said documents are in the name of Mr. R.D. Gupta, father of the petitioner. The petitioner had also fifed the said documents before the respondent DDA along with his representation dated 28th June, 2004. The file nothings recorded in the DDA file reveal that they have accepted that the present case is one wherein there has been lapse on the part of the postal authorities and neither the DDA nor the petitioner can be blamed. However, strangely the request of the petitioner for allotment of a flat has been rejected on the ground that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the wrong address policy. The present case is certainly not covered by the wrong address policy but is a peculiar case in which there is a lapse on the part of the postal authorities, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. The respondent DDA has accepted and admitted that throughout the relevant period, the petitioner was residing at A-8/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and the postal report they had received is wrong.

(3.) IT is also difficult to believe that the petitioner would not have accepted the demand-cum-allotment letter issued in the year 2001 on a registration made by him way back in 1980. Allotment was made to the petitioner after waiting 20 years. In the present case, the allotment was on hire and purchase basis and not on cash down basis, which goes to the advantage and benefit of the petitioner. There is no reason for the petitioner not to accept the said allotment.