Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, are that in the year 1979 DDA has floated a scheme for allotment of LIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. The petitioner registered himself under the said scheme for allotment of a LIG flat and a priority no.52877 was allotted to him. On 25.2.2005 DDA had issued a fresh policy for allotment of flats in those cases where either the demand letter was sent at the wrong address or where the priority of the registrant was missed in the matter of allotment of flats in the implementation of the judgment passed in W.P.(C)No.19095/2004.

3. The case of the petitioner is that since 30.5.1980, he has not been allotted a LIG flat by the DDA. The petitioner after a long wait of 27 years approached the DDA in order to ascertain the status of his application, when he was informed by the officials of the DDA to submit certain documents, which were submitted by the petitioner on 30.11.2006. The petitioner was again called upon to submit certain documents, which were submitted by the petitioner on 9.7.2009. On 13.7.2009 Assistant Director, DDA, had issued a communication to the petitioner requiring him to visit his office on any working day for verification of genuineness of the documents. The petitioner is stated to have visited the office of Assistant Director on 23.7.2009.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings filed. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute that petitioner had registered himself under the New Pattern Registration Scheme for allotment of a LIG flat and a priority no.52877 was given to him. On 25.2.2005 DDA had issued a fresh policy for allotment of flats in those cases where either the demand letter was sent at the wrong address or where the priority of the registrant was missed in the matter of allotment of flats in the implementation of the judgment passed in W.P.(C)No.19095/2004.

6. Notice in this petition was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent DDA. While the stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner had requested the DDA for cancellation of his registration on 16.2.2006 and the cancellation was approved by the DDA on 21.3.2006, however, counsel for the petitioner submits that at no point of time the petitioner ever made any request to DDA for cancellation of his registration for allotment of LIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme. DDA is unable to produce any document or letter addressed by the petitioner to DDA seeking cancellation, whereas on the other hand DDA had called upon the petitioner on various dates to produce documents. In fact by communication dated 13.07.2009 the petitioner was called upon to provide various documents for verification of his genuineness. In the absence of any document available with the DDA the stand taken by the DDA cannot be accepted. Since the petitioner applied under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, of the DDA in the year 1980 with the propriety no.58277, there is nothing on record to show that any allotment was made in favour of the petitioner or that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount as demanded by the DDA. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the fault on the part of the DDA.