Raghubir Singh Arora vs D.D.A.

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—The petitioner was registered under the NPR Scheme-1979 for allotment of a MIG flat.

As per the respondent-DDA, the petitioner was successful in draw of flats held on 1st June, 1987 and demand cum allotment letter dated 7th/ 15th July, 1987 was sent to the petitioner at 11/14 A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. However, the said letter was received back undelivered with the remarks "left without address". Thereafter the aforesaid demand cum allotment letter was sent to the petitioner at his occupational address i.e. Poonam Garments, Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031, but neither the said letter was received back as undelivered nor there was any response from the petitioner. It is stated that the allotment was cancelled on the ground of non-payment.

Subsequently, the respondent-DDA as per policy decision decided to charge cancellation charges, if the original allotment was not acceptable or on non-payment of the demand to continue with the registration under NPR Scheme -1979 and for being eligible for the subsequent draw of lots for flats. Counsel for the respondent admits that no letter was written by the respondent-DDA informing the petitioner about the said policy decision and requirement to pay cancellation charges. Counsel for the respondent-DDA states that an advertisement was published in the newspaper, but DDA has not placed on record any such advertisement. In view of the penal consequences of the policy decision, individual notices in the case of defaulters should have been issued. Mere advertisement in newspaper may not be sufficient notice to individuals. Advertisement can be missed. It is apparent that initially registration of the petitioner was not cancelled for failure to pay demanded amount in 1987. DDA has continued to retain the registration amount. There is difference between cancellation of registration and cancellation of allotment. Cancellation of registration deprives a person from being eligible for allotment in future for all times to come. Cancellation of allotment results in cancellation of allotment of a particular flat. In these circumstances, cancellation of registration on basis of subsequent policy decision after 1988 for failure to pay cancellation amount without notice is not justified and is arbitrary.

The petitioner''s case was considered as a tail-end priority case and was allotted a flat in Dwarka in the computerized draw of flats held on 31st March, 2004 on cash down basis. However, DDA did not post the demand cum allotment letter, but later on issued a show cause notice asking why the allotment of flat made in the computerized draw of flats held on 31st March, 2004, be not cancelled. It is apparent that notice for show cause was wrongly issued admittedly as demand cum allotment letter after draw of lots in 2004 was never issued.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that DDA will include the name of the petitioner, in the next mini draw of lots for allotment of MIG flat. The respondent will be entitled to charge the rates as were prevailing after four months from the date when draw of lots was held on 31st March, 2004. In addition, the respondent will also be entitled to charge cancellation charges and interest thereon @ 15% per annum. DDA will be entitled to verify the source of payment and whether the petitioner fulfils the eligibility requirements as per the scheme and allotment Rules.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.