Bhupinder Singh Vohra vs Delhi Development Authority

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.—The Petitioner''s father Shri Budh Singh got registered for the allotment of an MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (''NPRS, 1979'') with the Respondent, Delhi Development Authority (''DDA''), on 26th September, 1979. He gave his residential address as 10389, Pirki Bagichi, Subzi Mandi, Delhi and his occupational address as Girdhar Plastic Works, D-52, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi. Through a computerised draw of lots held on 31st January, 2003, Shri Budh Singh was allotted Flat No. 90, Ground Floor, Jahangir Puri (hereinafter ''the flat in question''). A demand-cum-allotment letter (''DAL'') with block dates of 21st to 25th April, 2003 was sent to him first at the residential address. This was returned undelivered to the DDA with postal remarks ''left without address''. Thereafter, the DAL was sent to his occupational address. It was returned unserved with the postal remarks ''intimation issue and unclaimed''. Thereafter, the allotment was cancelled by an order dated 22nd August, 2003. However, no cancellation letter was issued.

On 23rd January, 2009 the Petitioner intimated the DDA about the death of his father on 4th February, 1998. He mentioned that Shri Budh Singh had informed the DDA by a letter dated 14th August, 1989 which was received in the office of the DDA under Diary No. 7291, of the change of his residential address to A-225, Lawrence Road, Delhi-110035. The request of the Petitioner for mutation of the registration was granted and a letter was sent to him in that regard by the DDA on 26th February, 2009.

As regards application of the wrong address policy, initially a view was taken by the officials in the DDA that there was a failure on the part of the DDA to send the DAL to the changed address. The relevant portion of the file noting reads as under:

I have checked up the records of N and C Branch which is under the custody of Director (H)I''s office and found that the change of address letter dated 14.8.89 was received in DDA vide Diary No. 7291 (A photo copy of the Transit register is placed at page 37/c).

Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, learned Counsel appearing for the DDA has produced before the Court the photocopy of the Transit Register. A series of letters were received in the office of the DDA on 14th August, 1989 and they all were entered with one signature at the bottom of the page of a person who stated that he had received all those letters. The DDA has been unable to locate the letter of Shri Budh Singh as to change of address. It has however located the letter of one other person, viz., Usha Bassi who sent a letter on the same date which was received by the DDA under diary No. 7301. It is contended that the stamp and signature on that letter of Smt. Usha Bassi tallies with the signature of the person found at the bottom of the Transit Register, whereas the signature on the letter dated 14th August, 1989 of Shri Budh Singh bearing diary No. 7291 is different.

The second objection is that the acknowledgement stamp on the copy of letter dated 14th August, 1989 was of Janta Flats Section whereas it ought to have been of the MIG Section.

On the above grounds the DDA contends that the letter dated 14th August, 1989 of Shri Budh Singh intimating the DDA of the change of address was in fact not received by the DDA.

In the considered view of this Court, the above objections of the DDA are untenable in law. What happened in the DDA''s office is entirely for the DDA to explain. It is not possible for the Court to imagine what happened when the aforementioned letter dated 14th August, 1989 intimating the change of address was received in the counter of the DDA on that date. It is for the DDA to explain that why a Janta Section stamp was put on the letter instead of the MIG stamp. Also the clerks of the DDA receiving the letters at the several counters may not themselves sign the Transit Register. It is again for the DDA to explain this anomaly. By merely raising certain doubts in this regard, the entire burden cannot be shifted to the applicant since these are matters relating to the internal functioning of the DDA and are not under the control of the applicant. The only way that the DDA can possibly doubt the genuineness of the claim of the Petitioner is to show that somehow his father had manipulated the records. There is no evidence to even prima facie suggest this.

The other objection is that the petition is barred by laches. There are enough orders of this Court itself to show that many of the applicants who applied under the NPRS, 1979 have waited for more than two decades for their priority to mature. In the circumstances if an allottee, particularly one who did not receive the DAL, did not approach the DDA on a date earlier than when the Petitioner approached the DDA, such applicant or his legal heirs cannot be faulted on that score.

This Court is satisfied that the Petitioner''s case is covered under the wrong address policy of the DDA. Consequently, the DDA is directed to hold a mini draw within a period of four weeks from today and make an allotment of an MIG flat to the Petitioner, in the same area as far as possible. The DAL will be issued to him in accordance with the DDA''s policy within a further period of four weeks thereafter. Upon the Petitioner making payment in terms of the said DAL and completing all other formalities, the Petitioner will be put in possession of the flat in question within a further period of four weeks.

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.