Delhi High Court
Dda vs Banwari Lal Arya on 5 March, 2013
Author: V.K. Jain
Bench: Chief Justice, V.K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 137/2013
DDA
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv.
versus
BANWARI LAL ARYA
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Surendra Kumar and Mr. A.K.
Babar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 05.03.2013 CM No.3851/2013 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CM No.3852/2013 (delay) This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In view of the submissions made therein, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
LPA 137/2013 & CM No.3853/2013 (stay) In December, 1989, the respondent before us applied for allotment of a flat under Dr. Ambedkar Awas Yozna-1989 of the appellant and a flat was allotted to him on 21.8.2001. In the application form, the respondent had given two addresses, one as his permanent address and the other as his postal address. The demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to the respondent at his postal address, but was received back with the endorsement 'shifted'. No attempt was made by the DDA to send the allotment letter at the permanent address of the respondent disclosed in the application form. The allotment came to cancelled on 4.2.2004. The Cancellation Letter was also sent to the postal address and not to the permanent address of the respondent and consequently could not be served.
2. In reply to the information sought by the respondent, the appellant informed him about the aforesaid allotment and its cancellation. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 17.12.2012, held that the respondent was entitled to allotment of a flat in the vicinity of Peera Garhi, subject to his depositing the current cost, i.e. as on the date of impugned communication and directed the appellant to issue a fresh demand letter at the costs as on 7.6.2012. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.
3. It is not in dispute that despite his permanent address having been disclosed by the respondent in the application form itself, no attempt was made by the appellant to send the demand letter at that address. No justification has been shown by the appellant for not sending the demand-cum-allotment-letter at the permanent address of the respondent. In our view, once the demand-cum- allotment-letter sent at the postal address of the respondent was received back unserved, it was obligatory for the appellant to send the said letter at the permanent address which had been disclosed in the application form. Cancellation of the allotment without making an attempt to send the allotment letter at the permanent address of the respondent, disclosed in the application form, cannot be sustained and has rightly not found favour with the learned Single Judge.
4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
MARCH 05, 2013
rd