Failure to establish the dispatch and service of demand and cancellation letters shifts the fault to the authority, and the petitioner is entitled to the allotment if such establishment is not made.

Suresh Kait, J.

W.P.(C) No. 636/2013

1. Vide present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby directing the respondent/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot Flat No.D-116, First Floor, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi, or any other alternative flat announced by the respondent under Special Housing Registration Scheme for SC/ST Person, 1989 (for short ‘Special Housing Scheme’) under Ambedkar Aawas Yojna,1989, in favour of the petitioner.

2. Case of the petitioner is that on 29.12.1989, he had booked a Janta Flat vide application No.9534 under Special Housing Scheme and in this regard deposited an amount of Rs.4,200/- by way of demand draft No.258083 dated 29.12.1989, drawn on Syndicate Bank, GTB Nagar, Delhi.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner had changed his residence from A-330, Jahangirpuri, DDA Janta Flats, Delhi, to A-405, Shastri Nagar, Post Office Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052. In this regard, the petitioner had informed the respondent/DDA through communications dated 15.12.1997 and 14.09.1999 by ordinary post and again on 17.04.2009 by registered post.

4. The petitioner got information through RTI on 23.07.2010, whereby stated that the petitioner was allotted Flat No.116-D, First Floor, Sector-D, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi, but the same was cancelled as the payment of said Flat was not made by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never received the allotment letter or the demand letter in this regard, though he has been staying at the changed address since 1997, which was duly informed to the respondent/DDA vide aforesaid communications.

6. Learned counsel has pointed out that in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent/DDA, it is nowhere mentioned that when the demand letter was sent to the petitioner and by which mode. Therefore, vide order dated 19.03.2013, this Court directed the respondent to produce the Dispatch Register for the relevant period, however, the respondent stated in its affidavit filed on 22.05.2013 that the property allotment file bearing No.J/207(0253)93/AY/KG in relation to the petitioner was not traceable in the records of the respondent/DDA.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that if the respondent/DDA failed to establish by any material or evidence that the respondent Department had sent demand letter to the petitioner, in that eventuality, alleged communication made in this regard cannot be considered as valid communication and the petitioner is entitled to the same flat or any alternative flat.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Housing Management Information System(Queries) form relating to NPRS-JHRS-AAY Data Detail, which is at page 46 of the petition, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the date of allotment was 23.12.1992 and date of demand letter was 11.01.1993. However, this information does not show when the demand letter was sent; and by which mode, to the petitioner.

9. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the case of V.N. Bharat Vs. DDA & Anr. 2008 Legal Eagle (SC) 1183, wherein the Apex Court held that:

“19. The assertion of service of notice on account of such presumption has been denied by the appellant as a result whereof onus of proving service shifted back to the respondent. The respondent DDA has not led any other evidence in support of the presumption of service. In such circumstances, it has to be held that such service had not been effected. Therefore, when on the appellant's application for restoration of the allotment, the allotment was restored, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the earlier allotment continued as no cancellation and/or termination had, in fact, taken place in terms of Clause 4 of the Scheme in question.”

10. Also relied upon the case of Sh. Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. DDA, decided on 12.11.2013 by this Court in WP(C) No. 7433/2012, wherein held as under:-

“7. In pursuance of the order dated 29.08.2013 passed