IMPORTANT POINT
The acceptance of a new allotment at current rates precludes a claim for the original premium based on alleged non-receipt of a demand letter.

JUDGMENT :

(Dharmesh Sharma, J.)

1. The petitioner is invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby declaring that the act of the respondent/DDA,[Delhi Development Authority] in demanding current cost of the subject property from the petitioner as being arbitrary, illegal or void and for being contrary to the DDA’s policy.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the father of the petitioner, namely, Late Shri Sujan Singh applied for allotment of a plot of land measuring 60 sq. mtrs. in ‘Rohini MIG Scheme’ on 09.03.1981 vide Application No. 47666, making a deposit vide FDR No. 06372, Priority No. 02128 for a sum of Rs.5,000/- vide Receipt No. 7/72. It is the case of the petitioner that his father was allotted a plot bearing No. 92, Pocket 21, Sector - 24, Rohini, Delhi on 27.03.1991. However, the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 02.11.1993 was issued to an old address of the father of the petitioner in the records of the DDA, despite the fact that his father, after selling his old property No. 10255-56, situated in Gali Millwali, Ward No. XII, Mohalla Nawab Ganj, Azad Market, Library Road, Delhi – 110006, to one Smt. Saroj Devi, wife of Shri Rajinder Kumar vide a registered sale deed, had informed the DDA of this fact through a letter dated 26.04.1993 sent through UPC,[Under Postal Certificate].

3. It is stated that the petitioner’s father filed a representation on 18.03.1998 before the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor and Vice Chairman, DDA, seeking restoration and re-allotment of the plot, explaining the predicament that the demand-cum-allotment letter was never received by him. Subsequently, for the first time, his father was informed that the allotment stood cancelled vide letter dated 03.09.1998, which was sent at the changed address of his father i.e. B-11, Industrial Area, G. T. Karnal Road, Delhi - 110033.

4. The petitioner states that his father passed away on 21.04.2007, following which he applied for the mutation of the aforesaid plot in his name on 01.09.2008 and he claims that he submitted all the relevant documents. However, he was informed about the cancellation of the allotment due to non-payment of the premium, and his request for restoration was declined.

5. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 201/2010, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2011. Although the petitioner filed a review petition bearing RP No. 151/2011 to recall the aforesaid order, the review was also dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2011.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter he made several representations to the DDA and attended public hearings, but to no avail. Eventually, after much persuasion, the Principal Commissioner (Land & Development) on 15.06.2012, opined that the representation of the petitioner required de novo consideration and the representation of the petitioner was approved for reconsideration by the Director (RL) on 02.09.2013. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the DDA, reiterating that his father had sold the afore referred property No. 10255-56 in the year 1991, and therefore, could not have received the demand-cum-allotment letter issued on 02.11.1993 at his old address under any circumstance.

7. It appears that the matter was examined by the then Vice Chairman, DDA, on 26.12.2014, and a detailed note was put up for the approval of the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, inter alia, stating that the case of the petitioner was squarely covered under the ‘Wrong Address Policy’. The note was eventually approved by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor vide order dated 07.04.2015.

8. Upon the petitioner being intimated about the aforesaid decision on 14.05.2015, a mini draw was held on 30.12.2015, and initially plot No. 212, Sector 34, Pocket-A1, under the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981,[RRS], was allotted to the petitioner v