PURSHOTTAM Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-178
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 20,2007

PURSHOTTAM Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 05.3.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The appellant had as the writ petitioner challenged the legality of the letter dated 03.6.2004 issued by the Delhi Development Authority rejecting the request of the appellant herein for restoration of his registration No. 1756 dated 29.12.1989 for a MIG flat under the Ambedkar Aawas Scheme, 1989.
(2.) IT is submitted before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that the registration money of Rs. 12,200/- was not paid to the appellant and, therefore, the appellant made a representation to the Delhi Development Authority on 25.6.1998 for revival of his registration for allotment of the MIG flat with a further prayer that the registration money be not paid and the registration should be deemed to be not cancelled. The aforesaid contention raised before us by the appellant was also raised before the learned Single Judge. In order to appreciate the said contention, the learned Single Judge had considered the entire records and on appreciation thereof has held that there could not have been revival of the registration which was cancelled far back 1995 and that also on the basis of letter dated 07.11.1994 written by the appellant for cancellation of his registration.
(3.) THE appellant had deposited Rs. 12,200/- towards registration fee under the said scheme on 29.12.1989. On 07.11.1994, the appellant herein submitted an application seeking for cancellation of registration of refund of the registration money. In terms of the aforesaid request made by the appellant, the registration was cancelled and refund was allowed. DDA claims that refund cheque in the sum of Rs. 13,764/- constituting principal amount of Rs. 12,200/- along with interest thereon was issued on 21.7.1995 and the same was sent to the appellant by post. However, the same was returned back undelivered. Therefore, it is not a case where the refund money was not sent by the Delhi Development Authority to the appellant but the same could not be delivered as it was returned back by the postal authority. Since the appellant himself had sought for cancellation of the registration and refund of the amount and such cancellation of the registration having been made, in our considered opinion, there is no question of restoration of any registration and that too after nearly four years from the date of cancellation. There is also no policy which is brought to our notice permitting for restoration of a cancelled registration.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.