Entitlement to an MIG flat as per the prevailing policy at the time of the order, and the unacceptability of delay in allotment and issuance of the demand-cum-allotment letter based on a later circular.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The Appellant/DDA seeks to challenge the Judgment dated 30.04.2020 passed by the learned Singe Judge in W.P.(C) 6523/2017 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has directed the Appellant/DDA to allot a flat to the Respondent herein which is located in Rohini or in the area that is nearby, in case, flats are not available in Rohini at the rate prevalent in the year 2004 and not on the basis of the rate as applicable vide Circular dated 13.10.2011.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the father of the Respondent Mr. Manohar Lal Bajaj had applied for allotment of a MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. Allotment letter was issued on 07.12.1992 in the name of the father of the Respondent. The Respondent's father surrendered the allotment on 06.04.1993 for inclusion of his name in the tail-end priority in terms of the prevalent policy.

3. After surrendering the allotment on 20.05.1997, the father of the Respondent was assigned a fresh priority No.38931 in place of earlier number for allotment of flat at tail-end policy. The father of the Respondent passed away on 01.09.1997.

4. It is stated that the Respondent intimated about the death of his father on 24.11.1997 and submitted all the documents for transferring the registration in his name. It is stated that despite the intimation of death of the Respondent's father and request for transfer of registration in the name of Respondent, the Appellant/DDA issued allotment letter in the name of Respondent's father.

5. It is stated that the Respondent, thereafter, made representations and appeared in public hearings for changing the name in the allotment letter and for issuance of demand-cum-allotment letter in his name.

6. It is stated that on 30.06.2008, the Appellant/DDA issued a letter merely changing the name in the registration but did not issue the demand- cum-allotment letter in the name of the Respondent.

7. The Respondent, thereafter, filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 7191/2008 for issuance of demand-cum-allotment letter in his name. The said writ petition was allowed by Order dated 16.02.2010. The stand of the DDA before the learned Single Judge was that the case of the Respondent (Petitioner therein) had been considered by a Committee headed by Chief Legal Advisor, DDA and the Respondent herein would be entitled to an MIG flat in the next draw of lots and that the costing of the same would be done as per the policy. After the undertaking given by the DDA, Respondent also undertook to file an affidavit to the effect that the Respondent has not sold the registration, nor has he accepted the earnest money for the allotment, and the that the payment shall be made through cheque or demand draft and in case of loan the details of the loan shall be furnished and he shall also disclose his source of finance. In view of the stand taken by the Appellant/DDA and the undertaking given by the Respondent, the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide Order dated 16.02.2020 with a direction to the Appellant/DDA to include the name of the Respondent in the next draw of lot which was directed to be held not later than three months.

8. On 09.08.2010, the Respondent was allotted a flat in Jahangirpuri. The Respondent, being not satisfied by the allotment, approached this Court by filing a review petition for draw of lots for a flat to be allotted in Rohini area. This Court vide Order dated 08.03.2011 modified the Order dated 16.02.2010 to the extent that "the DDA will include the name of the Respondent in the next draw of lots which shall be held not later than three months from the date of the Order for allotment of a flat in favour of the Respondent in Rohini and if no flat is available in Rohini area, a flat will be allotted in any other nearby area, and the flat allotted to the Respondent in Jahangirpuri was directed to be treated as canc