It is averred that as per the policy of DDA a victim of double allot ment is companysidered for an allotment of a new flat, on the same floor in the same area and in the same zone in the next draw and thereafter the allotted flat, drawn in his favour is given to him at the same companyt at which the earlier flat was allotted to him.
The petitioner has also claimed the companyt of these proceed ings.
The second objection taken by the respondent DDA is that the policy framed by the DDA in 1993 to take care of the cases of double allotments cannot be made applicable to the present case as the same would have numberretrospective application and would be applicable prospectively, i.e., in respect of the cases after the year 1993.
On learn ing the above facts, the petitioner immediately made another representation on 2nd February, 1996 pointing out the above facts and requesting that as per the policy of the DDA, he should be companysidered for allotment of a flat on the same floor in the same area and in the same Zone immediately.
It is stated that numberbenefit under the policy of 1993 can be extended to the petitioner because the policy framed in 1993 would have prospective application and retrospectively numberbenefit can be given to any one under the abovesaid policy.
From the narration of the above facts, it is apparent that for the delay, that has been caused, numberresponsibility can be attributed to the petitioner.
It is stated that after a long wait of 10 years, the petitioner, in the draw of lots, held by the respondent DDA on 31st August, 1989 was allotted a third floor flat, bearing No.
Krishna Sharda supra on the basis of which the respondent DDA revised its policy of 1991 and framed a new policy of 1993, the flat was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1990.
He also requested that an intimation informa tion be given to him about the status of his registration and allotment but numberreply to the said representation was given by the respondent DDA.
In the present case, as a matter of fact, on the basis of the above facts, it can be stated that the boot is on the other leg.
123 D, Pocket A and B, Group 3 and 4, situat ed at Dilshad Garden, Delhi at a companyt of Rs.
Delhi Development Au thority, 1996 3 RCR Civil 347.
The petitioner also stated in the above said representation that a number of third floor flats in Pocket C, Jhilmil, Phase II, which fell in the same Zone, were lying vacant and therefore one of those flats be allotted in his favour.
It is further stated that the fact about the allotment of the above mentioned flat at Dilshad Garden was never intimated to the petitioner number the petitioner was informed about the said allotment being a case of do uble allotment.
65 D, Pocket C, Phase II, Jhilmil at the same companyt at which the earlier flat in the same area was allotted to him in the draw of lots held on 31st August, 1989 and the possession of the same be also given to him immediately.
No intimation information of the fact that the case of the petitioner was a case of double allotment was given to the petition er.
It is also an admitted fact that thereafter a demand cum allotment letter was also pre pared in respect of the above said flat in the name of the petitioner but the same companyld number be sent to him as the case was a case of double allot ment because the demised flat had already been allotted to one Shri Om Prakash Sadana on 25th July, 1989 who had even taken possession of the same on 9th January, 1990.
The grievance of the petitioner in nutshell is that numberaction has been taken by the officials of the respondent DDA on his above said repre sentation.
Thereupon the petitioner made another representation on 2nd February, 1996 bringing all the facts to the numberice of respondent DDA with request that as per the policy of the DDA, a third floor flat in Pocket C, Jhilmil, Phase II, which fell in the same Zone be allotted to him at the same price immediately.
It was by the end of the year 1995 when the respondent DDA made allot ment of flats to most of the registrants of the Scheme 1979 and the peti tioner was unaware of his fate, that the petitioner made a representation on 31st January, 1996 asking the respondent DDA as to why an allotment has number been made in his favour.
However, numberaction was taken by the respondent DDA on the above said representation dated the 2nd February, 1996.
1,25,700/ on cash down basis.
Thus the first objection taken by the respondent DDA is devoid of substance and has to be rejected sum marily.
It is stated in the companynter affidavit filed by Shri N.N. Puri, Director Housing II , DDA that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed with companyts.
Insofar as the first objection is companycerned, the same in the facts and circumstances of the case of numberconsequence because though a flat was allotted to the petitioner in the draw of lots held in August, 1989 and on the basis of the draw of lots a demand cum allotment letter was also pre pared but the same was never sent to the petitioner because the companycerned officials of the respondent DDA themselves numbericed that the case was a case double allotment.
The same in numberway helps the case of the respondent DDA in the present case.
I have gone through the abovesaid deci sion.
The facts of the case of Smt.
He requested that he should be intimated about the status of his registration.
In the case of Smt.
When the petitioner received numberreply to his representation, referred to above, from the authorities of the respondent DDA, the petitioner personally visited the office of the respondent was orally informed by the officials of the respondent DDA about the allotment of the dismissed flat to him in the draw of lots held on 31st August, 1989 and also the fact that the demand cum allotment letter companyld number be issued to him because of double allotment.
1,35,700/ on cash down basis.
In the reply filed on behalf of the DDA, it is stated that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, suffers from the vice of latches as the petitioner has filed the present writ petition after a gap of 8 years when the flat in question was allotted to him.
It is stated that by the end of the year 1995 the DDA had made allotment of flats to practically most of the persons registered under the above said Scheme of 1979.
A rejoinder to the companynter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
In other words that case of double allotment related to the year 1990.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents material on record.
The second objection taken by the respondent DDA that the policy formulated in the year 1993 cannot have retrospective application and numberbenefit under the above said policy can be given to the petitioner is also devoid of substance.
On learning the same, the petitioner made a representation to DDA on 31st January, 1996 stating therein as to why he had number been allotted a flat.
It is also number in dispute that in the draw of lots held on 31st August, 1989, the petitioner was allotted a third floor flat bearing No.
Admitted facts, on which there is numbercontroversy between the parties in the present petition, are that the petitioner applied for and got him self registered for allotment of a MIG flat under the New Pattern Regis tration Scheme, 1979 announced and floated by the DDA.
The petitioner ultimately visited the office of the Vice Chairman of the re spondent personally and to his utter shock and surprise he was orally informed by the official is of the respondent DDA about the allotment of the above said flat at Dilshad Garden in the draw of lots held on 31st August, 1989 and was also informed that the allotment cum demand letter thereof was number issued to him being a case of double allotment.
123 D, Pocket A and B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi at a companyt of Rs.
It is alleged that the respondent DDA in violation of its own policy, did number even companysider the petitioner for allotment of another flat in the subsequent draw of lots.
The respondent DDA is also number disputing the fact that to take care of the cases of double allotments the respondent DDA has formulated a policy in the year 1993.
Whereas in the present case in the draw of lots held on 31st August, 1989, a third floor flat bearing No.
It is stated that after the draw of lots held on 31st August, 1989 a de mand cum allotment letter was also prepared in the name of the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned flat but the same companyld number be sent to him as it was numbericed by the companycerned authorities that the above mentioned flat had already been allotted to one Shri Om Prakash Sadana much before, i.e., on 25th July, 1989 who had even taken possession of the same on 9th January, 1990.
The main objection of the re spondent DDA in the present writ petition is that the present writ petition suffers from the vice of latches and therefore numberrelief can be given to the petitioner in the present writ petition.
With a view to satisfy myself, I directed the respondent DDA to produce the original records relating to the case of the petitioner which the respondent DDA did produce and which too have been perused by me.
Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent and in reply an affidavit has been filed by Shri N.N. Puri, Director Housing II , DDA.
The Court in the above said case came to the companyclusion that numberflat at any point of time was allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner was under a misapprehension that a flat was allotted to her.
The above said policy of the year 1991 was assailed by the petitioners in different Forums including this Court.
In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, the peti tioner has companytroverted the pleas companytentions of the respondent DDA and has reiterated the averments made in the petition.
It has been inter alia prayed by the petitioner that a mandamus be issued to the respondent DDA companymanding the respondent to forthwith allot flat No.
The learned Counsel for the respondent DDA has placed reliance on a decision of this companyrt in case Sumitra Kawlra Vs.
But numberreply to his above said representation was given by the respondent DDA.
123 D, Pocket A and B, Group 3 and 4, Dilshad Garden at a companyt of Rs.
Prior to the policy of 1993, a policy framed by the DDA in the year 1991 to deal with the cases of double allotment was in existence and according to the above said policy in case of double allot ment while working the companyt of subsequent flat, the current companyt of company struction was to be taken into account alongwith land premium at the rate at which it was included in the companyt of the earlier flat.
The next objection taken by the respondent DDA in reply to show cause is that the petitioner was allotted the flat in question in the year 1989 and the policy on which reliance is being placed was formulated by the respondent DDA in 1993.
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. The petitioner, named above, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India averring that the petitioner applied for and got himself registered for the allotment of a Middle Income Group MIG flat under the New Pettern Registration Scheme, 1979 launched by the Delhi Development Authority hereinafter refered to as the DDA .
