PARWATI DEVI Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the respondent/dda to allot a suitable alternative Janta Flat to them in Rohini Zone in lieu of the flat allotted to the deceased registrant, their predecessor-in-interest, in the year 1992, at the cost as per the policy applicable in that regard.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Shri Sujjan Singh, was registered with the DDA under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (in short 'the NPRS 1979') for allotment of a Janta Flat. At the relevant time, when Shri Sujjan Singh applied for registration, he was living at Jor Bagh, New Delhi. However, after the year 2000, he shifted his residence to E-100, Sector 36, Noida, UP. Much before that, in the year 1992, Shri Sujjan Singh was declared a successful allottee of a Janta Flat in a draw of lots, bearing No. 202, Ground floor, Pocket7, Sector 16, Rohini and a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 17. 8. 1992 was issued by the respondent/dda. However, the said letter was not received by the registrant. As a result, the respondent/dda cancelled the allotment.

(3.) ON 21. 12. 1998, the deceased registrant being unaware of the allotment made in his favour, made a representation to the respondent/dda pointing out that no flat has been allotted to him and requesting for an early allotment. However, he did not receive any response from the respondent/dda. On 2. 9. 2006, the registrant expired leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. The petitioners while going through the records, came across the registration papers of Sh. Sujjan Singh and approached the respondent/dda by filing an application on 18. 12. 2006, under the RTI act, 2005 for information regarding the status of the registration and allotment, if any. On 11. 1. 2007, the respondent/dda replied to the aforesaid application of the petitioners by stating that a flat was allotted to the deceased registrant, and a demand letter was issued to him on 17. 8. 1992; however the allotment was cancelled on account of non-payment. The petitioners served a legal notice on the respondent/dda informing it that the registrant never received the aforesaid demand-cum-allotment letter, stated to have been sent to him and that he was never granted an opportunity of hearing before cancelling his allotment. The respondent/dda gave a reply dated 2. 4. 2007, denying the claim of the petitioners thus compelling them to file the present writ petition.