Mrs. Soma Rani vs Delhi Development Authority

V.K. Jain, J.—Late Shri Joginder Kumar, husband of the petitioner, got registered with DDA under its New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS), 1979, disclosing his address as 17/92, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. The case of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 21.08.1999, her husband late Shri Joginder Singh had requested DDA to change his address in the record as 4/150, Subhash Nagar. On death of Shri Joginder Singh on 02.10.2008, the petitioner, while checking his papers, found the documents pertaining to Registration under NPRS, 1979, sometime in November, 2010 and approached DDA to ascertain the status of the registration made by her husband. She was informed that turn of her husband had matured way back in the year 2002-03 and he was allotted an MIG flat in Rohini which was later cancelled on account of non-delivery of the said letter and consequent non-payment of the price of the flat. On 14.02.2011, the petitioner applied for mutation in her name and claims to have submitted requisite documents in this regard. The mutation, however, has not been granted by DDA on the ground that the allotment already stands cancelled. The petitioner is accordingly seeking a direction to DDA to treat her case as a case of wrong address and further direction to hold a mini draw for the purpose of allotment of a flat to her under MIG category, as per its policy, after grant of mutation in her favour. In its counter-affidavit, respondent-DDA, has admitted that Shri Joginder Singh, which in the counter-affidavit, has been wrongly described as the father of the petitioner, had got registered with them for allotment of MIG flat under NPRS, 1979. It is stated that on maturity of his turn, he was allotted an MIG flat No. 186, Pocket-6, Sector 23. The allotment letter was sent to him at the address disclosed in the registration application, i.e., 17/92, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi, but the same was received back unserved with the remarks that "at present nobody is staying at this place". The allotment made to him was, therefore, cancelled. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit, DDA has admitted that a letter was received on 21.08.1999 vide diary number 5450. However, DDA claims that it is not in a position to ascertain whether the letter received vide aforesaid diary number was for change of address or some other communication, since the allotment file is not traceable.

A perusal of the letter dated 21.08.1999 would show that it purports to be received by the counter clerk vide diary No. 5450. The diary number has been given on the stamp of DDA which appears on the copy of the letter dated 21.08.1999. This is not the case of the DDA in the counter-affidavit that the stamp affixed on the said letter is a forged stamp or that it bears a forged signature. DDA has not been able to specifically deny the averment of the petitioner that it was the letter dated 21.08.1999 written by her husband, which was received by DDA vide diary No. 5450. The Register in which letters received by DDA are entered has not been filed and this is not the case of DDA that the entry made in the relevant register pertains to some document other than the letter dated 21.8.1999. Since DDA has neither produced any other document, received by it vide diary No. 5450, nor taken a stand that the stamp on the copy of the letter filed by the petitioner is forged or that some document other than the letter dated 21.8.1999 was received by it vide Diary No. 5450, there is no reason to reject the plea taken by the petitioner that in fact it was only the letter dated 21.08.1999 sent by her husband which was received by DDA vide the aforesaid diary number. In fact, an adverse inference needs to be made on account of its not producing the file of flat No. 186, Pocket-6, Sector 23, the file relating to the registration in favour of the husband of the petitioner and the relevant diary register.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no escape from recording a finding that late Shri Joginder Kumar, husband of the petitioner had intimated the change of address vide his letter dated 21.08.1999. DDA, therefore, was required to send the allotment letter at the changed address instead of sending it at the initial address, disclosed in the application. DDA having not done so, it cannot now refuse allotment to the petitioner if she is otherwise eligible for mutation of the registration in her favour. The learned counsel, on instructions, states that the petitioner is ready to pay the price of the flat, which was prevailing on the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e., 22.07.2011. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondent-DDA to consider the request of the petitioner for mutation of the registration in her name and take an appropriate decision therein within a period of eight weeks from today. If the registration is mutated in the name of the petitioner, DDA shall allot an MIG flat to her within four weeks thereafter by holding a mini draw in this regard after verifying her address and identity. DDA shall charge the price of the flat, as prevailing on the date of the filing of the writ petition, i.e., 22.07.2011. The possession will be handed over to the petitioner after verifying that the price of the flat has been paid by her from her own bank account.