Deep Chand vs DDA and Ors

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

CM 11423/2012 (Delay in filing) and CM 11424/2012 (Delay in refiling)

The delay in filing and refiling of the appeal is condoned.

These applications stand disposed of.

CM 11425/2012(Exemption)

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

This application stands disposed of.

LPA 492/2012

The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.6040/2011. The writ petition was dismissed by virtue of the impugned order primarily on the ground of delay. The appellant had been registered for an LIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme- 1979 floated by the respondent DDA. In 1991 the appellant was allotted Flat No.792, Pocket-D at Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Unfortunately, the appellant had, in the meanwhile, changed his address and consequently the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter in respect of the said flat was sent by the respondent DDA at the wrong address and was never been received by the appellant.

The appellant made representations and consequent thereupon, his case was considered and examined under the policy with regard to Demand-cum-Allotment Letters sent at wrong addresses. The policy entailed that such an allottee would be given an alternate allotment. In view thereof, the appellant was allotted a flat at Rohini. However, the appellant was not happy with the said allotment because of the cost of the flat being much higher than the cost of the flat at Dilshad Garden. Consequently, he represented that he may be allotted a flat at Dilshad Garden inasmuch as the cost of the flat at Rohini was too high for him to bear. This representation of the petitioner was rejected and, ultimately, inasmuch as the appellant had failed to avail the allotment at Rohini, the same was cancelled on 01.07.1994.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was waiting for his allotment as he was under the impression that his case of allotment was still pending. However, this submission on behalf of the appellant has been disbelieved by the leaned Single Judge. It is for the first time in the year 2009 by a letter dated 16.03.2009 that the appellant once again requested the DDA for allotment of another flat against registration No.38561 under the LIG category. He requested that he may be allotted a flat in Dilshad Garden or even at Rohini but by charging the old cost when he was declared successful for allotment of flat in the draw held on 15.02.1991. The case of the appellant was examined and the appellant was required to furnish certain documents. Thereafter the file was put up before the appropriate authorities and we find that there are favourable notings in the file dated 15.01.2010 where a dealing assistant has indicated that approval may be given for allotment of an LIG flat to the appellant under the "wrong address" policy keeping in view the brief facts of the case available at page 15/N & 17/N of the said file. The file however travelled through the appropriate authorities in the hierarchical structure and ultimately the Director(H) of DDA rejected the case. The noting by the Director(H) on the file was that the flat has already been allotted in the year 1992 and has been cancelled due to non-compliance of terms and conditions of Demand-cum - Allotment Letter. It was, therefore, observed that the case was liable for rejection. Consequently, the appellant''s request which he sought to revive once again in the year 2009 also, after examination of the file by the officials of the DDA, came to be rejected. It is thereupon that the appellant filed the writ petition before this court which has been dismissed by virtue of the impugned order dated 19.08.2011.

The learned Single Judge observed that though the respondent DDA had a policy of giving a second chance but the appellant having allowed the allotment in the year 1992 in his favour to lapse cannot be said to be now eligible under the said policy after over 14 years. The learned Single Judge also observed that the appellant herein had relied on the notings in the file of the DDA which were favourable to him. However, the learned Single Judge, in our view, correctly held that merely because some of the officials of the DDA had made notings favourable to the appellant, the same would not entitle him to relief when the said favourable notings did not find favour with the higher officials who did not agree with the claim of the appellant. The reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, and Jasbir Singh Chhabra and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, in this regard, are apposite. For the above reasons we feel that there is no occasion for us to take a different view from that taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.