SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Del) 844

S.MURALIDHAR
THAKUR DASS – Appellant
Versus
D. D. A. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Richa Kapoor. Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pawan Mathur. Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (Open Court)- The petitioner, applied under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 (NPRS 1979) for an LIG flat on 6.9.1979. In the application form he gave two addresses: one, a residential address at 25/5, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and the second, an occupational address at 27/1, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. A demand-cum-allotment letter was issued with block dates 27.12.1993 to 31.12.1993 at the residential address but it was received back as undelivered. The admitted position is that the letter was thereafter sent to his occupational address.

2. The petitioner, a cycle mechanic, was unable to make payment and requested for extension of time for making the payment by his letter dated 28.3.1994. He had given his occupational address in the said letter. He later sent a letter dated 15.4.1994 requesting for cancellation of the allotment. This was duly received along with the third copy of challan for payment of cancellation charges. The address given here again was 27/1, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner states that by this time he had vacated his residential address and was living at the occupational addre












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top