Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Ms. Prem Bhatnagar on 14 February, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th February, 2012
+ LPA 1098/2011
% DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv.
Versus
MS. PREM BHATNAGAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. Vikram Saini,
Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The appellant DDA in this Intra-Court appeal impugns the judgment dated 19.05.2011 of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.592/2011 preferred by the respondent and directing the appellant DDA to allot an LIG flat in favour of the respondent subject to the respondent paying cost of the flat as demanded in the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 01.08.2003/ 07.08.2003 together with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
2. Notice of this appeal was issued to the respondent limited to the LPA 1098/2011 Page 1 of 6 aspect as to whether the respondent is to pay the current cost for allotment of the flat.
3. The respondent was a registrant with the appellant DDA in the New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS), 1979 for an LIG flat. No allotment was however made in favour of the respondent till the year 2003. Demand- cum-allotment letter dated 01.08.2003 / 07.08.2003 was ultimately issued at the address furnished by the respondent in the application form but which was returned undelivered with the remarks that the respondent had "Left Without Address". The respondent finally in or about the year 2004, issued advertisements in the newspapers calling upon registrants of undelivered demand-cum-allotment letters to approach the appellant DDA for allotment. Upon the respondent not responding thereto also, the registration in her favour was cancelled.
4. The respondent claims to have in or about the year 2010 learnt of allotments having been made to all the registrants of the NPRS, 1979. She then approached the DDA and upon her representation remaining unsuccessful, filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises. LPA 1098/2011 Page 2 of 6
5. It was / is the plea of the respondent that even though she had not intimated of the change of her address to DDA but in the documents filed by her in the year 1979, her official address was available and where she continued to work till the year 2004; that upon the demand-cum-allotment letter being returned undelivered from her residential address, attempt for intimation at her occupational address ought to have been made.
6. The case of the appellant / DDA was / is that the respondent had failed to furnish her occupational address against the column provided therefor in the application form and thus the appellant DDA could not be blamed for non intimation of the allotment to the respondent. It was / is further pleaded that the NPRS, 1979 in which the respondent had registered had since closed and the respondent is now entitled only to refund of the registration amount.
7. The learned Single Judge has in the judgment impugned in this petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, accepted the plea of the respondent that since the occupational address even though not filled in by the respondent in the application form was available in the documents and since the allotment was being made long after the application, attempt LPA 1098/2011 Page 3 of 6 should have been made to intimate the respondent at the occupational address available in the documents filed along with the application. Finding that as per the policy dated 25.02.2004 of the appellant DDA, upon the registrant approaching the appellant DDA within four years is entitled to allotment at the rates of the initial demand together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, direction for allotment of flat as aforesaid was made.
8. The counsel for the appellant DDA before us has contended that the appellant DDA could not be expected to search in the documents filed along with the application for the alternate addresses, when the registrant had failed to provide the same; that in the present case, the respondent was clearly at fault in not intimating the change of address; that the policy dated 25.02.2004 applied by the learned Single Judge was not applicable in the facts of the case.
9. Finding the respondent to be at fault to the extent of not intimating the change of her residential address and to have not enquired about the status of her registration and to have waited for inordinately long time till 2010 to enquire and further finding the respondent to be not covered by the policy aforesaid, we had enquired from the counsel for the respondent LPA 1098/2011 Page 4 of 6 whether the respondent was willing to pay the cost of the flat of the date when the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The counsel for the respondent after obtaining instructions has stated that the respondent for the sake of finality is willing to pay the costs of the flat as on the date of the impugned judgment i.e. 19.05.2011.
10. We find that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition exercising the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be lost sight of that the priority of the respondent had matured nearly 24 years after the registration. The respondent, who had waited for the flat for so long, ought not to be deprived thereof for her default in intimating the change of address. The exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge is not interfereable in appeal unless found to be perverse. No perversity is found in the present case. On the contrary with the respondent expressing willingness to pay the cost of the flat of the year 2011, the interest of the appellant DDA stands sufficiently protected.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellant DDA to issue a LPA 1098/2011 Page 5 of 6 demand-cum-allotment letter in favour of the respondent, we modify the same to the extent that the appellant DDA shall be entitled to demand the cost of the flat as on 19.05.2011. The order be now complied with within ten weeks of today. The appeal is disposed of. This order having been made in the circumstances aforesaid, be not treated as precedent.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 14, 2012 „gsr‟..
LPA 1098/2011 Page 6 of 6