Gita Mittal, J. (Oral) - The present petition assails the action of the DDA in cancelling allotment of a flat allotted to him. The petitioner was an applicant with the DDA in respect of a Janta flat in the NPRS of 1979. There is no dispute that the allotment of the flat matured in favour of the petitioner in the year 1990. This allotment was cancelled on 17th September, 1990 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make payment and had not submitted the required papers.

2. The petitioner has contended that on receipt of demand-cum-allotment letter dated 24th April, 1990 which stipulated the last date of payment as 1st August, 1990, the petitioner, made payments towards this flat in terms of the allotment letter dated 16th July, 1990. Reliance is placed on the deposit of documents by him on 17th September, 1990 against receipt. Despite these facts having been brought to the notice of the DDA, a demand for cancellation charges was raised upon him.

3. Mr. Kinra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner complied with the illegal demand and deposited on 27th October, 1990 a sum of Rs. 1,383/- towards the cancellation charges. It is pointed but that on the petitioners representation in public hearing, his name was included in the draw of lots held on 14th February, 1991 when the petitioner was allotted a flat bearing No. 13, First Floor, Sector 11, Pocket B-5, Rohini, Delhi on hire purchase basis.

The petitioner submits that he has not received any demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of this allotment.

4. The writ petition has been filed premised on the assertion that no allotment was made in favour of the petitioner despite passage of all this time and the amount of the petitioner is also lying with the DDA. This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the DDA to hold a draw of lots and to make an allotment of a similar flat in favour of the petitioner in terms of the allotment already effected.

5. On behalf of the DDA, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned Counsel has opposed grant of relief to the petitioner contending that the DDA had validly issued a demand-cum-allotment letter in the block dates between 24th July, 1991 and 30th July, 1991. As this letter was returned back by the postal authorities with the remarks that the addressee had "left without address" and the last date for making payment expired on 28th October, 1991, allotment of this flat was cancelled immediately. The DDA submits that it had thereafter demanded the cancellation charges of Rs. 2,557/- from the petitioner by the letter dated 17th July, 1995 but the petitioner failed to make this deposit. On this basis, the DDA contends that the petitioner is disentitled to any relief. The writ petition is opposed also on the grounds of delay and laches.

6. Mr. Kinra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to a policy decision taken in file No. 195(155)/93 whereby the DDA had notified that in case a letter is received back with the remarks that the addressee has left the house, the DDA was required to issue the demand-cum-allotment letter on the same address. It was further directed that this letter has also to be sent on the occupational address which was given on the registration application.

7. From the facts afore-noticed and stated on record, it is apparent that no effort was made by the DDA to serve the demand-cum-allotment letter upon the petitioner.

8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the stand of the DDA is astonishing, The petitioner is an applicant who has applied for an allotment of Janta flat. The admitted position is that despite receipt of payment from the petitioner as back as on 16th July, 1990, the first allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the DDA unjustifiably. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to wrongfully deposit cancellation charges of Rs. 1,383/- which also the petitioner did under protest. Instea