TAJINDER KAUR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Click here to view full judgement.
S.MURALIDHAR, J. -
(1.) The petitioner here applied for an MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS) and was given a registration No. 4970 and priority No. 9040. Pursuant to a draw of lots, the petitioner was allotted an MIG flat in Rohini and a demand-cum-allotment letter with block dates 3.1.1991 to 10.1.1991 was issued. The petitioner could not pay the amount and requested for cancellation. The cancellation charges of Rs. 900/- were paid by her on 25.3.1991. As per the policy of the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA'), notwithstanding the cancellation the registration under the NPRS would remain alive.
(2.) The petitioner states that she kept visiting the DDA between 1999 and 2004 and was informed by them from time to time that as per her priority, her name would be included at the tail end in the draw of lots s that were to be held. Finally she submitted an application under the Right to Information Act ('RTI Act') on 31.5.2006.
2. The stand of the DDA is that in cases where the records of the DDA have been misplaced or are untraceable, it is possible that a name has been missed and could not be included in the draw of lots. To cover such contingencies of missing cases, three public notices were issued by the DDA. The last of such public notice was issued on 5.2.2006. Those MIG registrants who had not yet been allotted flats were asked to contact the DDA within 30 days of the notice. It was stated that ?any request received after the expiry of 30 days will not be entertained and summarily rejected.? It is stated in the counter affidavit since the petitioner did not approach the DDA within the time limit stipulated in the last public notice, her request could not be entertained.
(3.) The records of the case were perused by the Court. The file appears to have been constructed only after the RTI application was received from the petitioner. It is clear from the notings in the file that the main file of the petitioner's allotment was not traceable. The petitioner was called on several occasions and asked to submit documents, which she did. Thereafter an exercise was undertaken to verify the genuineness of the claim and the identity of the petitioner. This also appears to have been successfully completed. A note was then prepared for approval of allotment of an MIG flat in the tail end priority. The note was in fact prepared after notice was issued by this Court in the present writ petition on 4.7.2006. The only factor that was held against the petitioner was that her request was received after the expiry of 30 days as stipulated in the notice dated 5.2.2006.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.