PURSHOTTAM Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Click here to view full 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
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
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.