Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is obvious that the petitioner has lost entitlement as he did not pay.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner did not receive the demand-cum-allotment letter.

10. However, what is relevant is that DDA posted the letter at the correct address and the said letter has not been received back unserved. There is a presumption of service.

11. But one fact weighs with me. Petitioner has waited for a flat since 1979. DDA is allotting flats at the tail end priority. There may be a possibility that after all the claims are satisfied, a flat may be available for allotment to the petitioner. If a flat is available, Vice Chairman, DDA may consider allotting the same to the petitioner provided petitioner pays the current cost when flat is allotted to him.

The order dated 9.9.2010 passed in W.P(C) No.6121/2010, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

"This court vide its order dated 28.02.2006 in W.P.(C.) No. 2376/2006 had directed the respondent/DDA to consider allotment of an MIG flat to the petitioner, if one such flat is available after satisfying the claims of all other persons in the tail end priority. The respondent/DDA vide its impugned order dated 28.07.2009 has declined allotment of an MIG Flat to the petitioner on the ground that the request of the petitioner for restoration of allotment of MIG Flat No. 383, First Floor, Block M-3, Pocket-I, Sector A-9, Narela, Delhi, cannot be acceded to. The impugned order passed by the respondent/DDA was prior to the order of this court dated 28.02.2006 in W.P.(C.) No. 2376/2006. Hence, the impugned order dated 28.07.2009 (Annexure P-10 at page 37 of the paper book) is hereby quashed.

8. As regards the order passed by this Court on 28.2.2006 permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the Vice Chairman of DDA, directing the Vice-Chairman DDA to consider the said representation and consider allotting a flat to the petitioner in case a flat remained un-allotted after satisfying the claims of all the registrants, this order, in my view, the said order does not mandate DDA to allot a flat to the petitioner. At best, it mandates DDA to consider the request of the petitioner for allotment of a flat after all the registrants under NPRS-1979 have been allotted flats by DDA. It can hardly be disputed that there are many registrants, who for one reason or the other, have not been allotted flats by DDA under NPRS-1979. The writ petitions filed by the registrants who were denied allotment of flats by DDA have been rejected by this Court and a number of writ petition seeking allotment of flats under NPRS-1979 are still pending disposal in this Court. So long as, there is even one registrant under NPRS-1979 waiting for allotment of a flat from DDA, the petitioner could not have been considered and cannot be considered for allotment of a flat under the said scheme, in terms of the order dated 28.2.2006.

9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 28.2.2006 required DDA to consider allotment of a flat to the petitioner after satisfying the claims of other registrants provided one or more flats remained un-allotted even after satisfying the claims of all the registrants, but DDA rejected the representation on grounds which were extraneous to the order dated 28.2.2006. A perusal of the order dated 6.5.2001 would show that the Director (Housing)-I specifically noted that if the benefit of allotment was given to the petitioner, this would result in hundreds of registrants coming to DDA with request for allotment/re- allotment. This observation made by the Director (Housing) clearly shows that there are many registrants who could not get allotment from DDA, implying thereby that the claims of all the registrants do not stand satisfied. In any case, as observed earlier, a large number of petition by the registrants of NPRS-1979 are still pending adjudication in this Court and, therefore, the occasion of considering the allotment of a flat to the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court on 28.2.2006, has not even arrived as yet.