JUDGMENT
C.K. Mahajan, J.
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner
seeks quashing of allotment of flat No. 10, Block B,
Pocket-5, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi in favor of the
petitioner vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated
24.9.1991 and prays for allotment of a similar flat in
the same area on the same terms and conditions and
price with fresh block dates for payment at which
earlier flat was allotted to him.
2. The petitioner applied for allotment of an
MIG flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979
in the year 1979. Registration number of the
petitioner was 9959 and priority number was 9592. On
18th February, 1991, the petitioner was allotted MIG
Flat No. 10, Block B, Pocket-5, Sector 15, Rohini on
cash down basis. The petitioner did not receive the
allotment-cum-demand letter. However, on 9.5.1991,
the petitioner learnt that the said flat had been
allotted to Kanwar Bhan Malik when he received the
notice from the Court in CW 1509/91. This Court vide
order dated 7.5.1991 had directed the DDA to maintain
status quo in respect of the flat in question. On
21st August, 1991, the petitioner made a
representation to the DDA asking it to settle the case
with the earlier allottee before issuance of demand
letter to him in respect of flat in question. Despite
representation of petitioner, the respondent/DDA
issued an allotment-cum/demand letter in favor of the
petitioner on 24.9.1991 in respect of flat in
question. The petitioner was asked to make payment of
Rs. 379142.24 on or before 23.12.1991 failing which the
allotment would be cancelled. On 3.10.1991, the
petitioner made another representation to the DDA
pointing out that he was not liable to make payment of
the demand and he would deposit the money after
getting confirmation that the dispute regarding the
flat in question had been decided in favor of DDA.
On 7th December, 1991 and 20.12.1991, two more
representations were made by the petitioner. On
21.1.1992, the respondent/DDA issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause,
within 15 days, as to why allotment of flat in question
in his favor be not cancelled. According to the
petitioner, the said letter was actually posted on
21.2.1992. On 26th February, 1992, the petitioner
responded to the show cause notice. The petitioner
made three more representations to respondent/DDA on
4.10.1992, 26.3.1993 and 9.11.1993. The
respondent/DDA confirmed that the case regarding flat
in question was pending in the Court and as soon as a
decision was taken, the petitioner would be informed.
During the period from 26.11.1993 to 18.7.1996, the
petitioner made 8 more representations to the
respondent but to no avail. During this period, the
respondent/DDA gave possession of the flat in question
to Mr. Kanwar Bhan Malik but did not allot a suitable
alternative flat to the petitioner. On 25.10.1996,
the petitioner filed a complete against respondent/DDA
before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-II, Delhi
praying for directing to DDA to give him possession of
an MIG flat in Rohini having parity in all respect of
the flat which was allotted to him in the draw of lots
in February, 1991 and also pay compensation amounting
to Rs. 4 lakhs. Notice was issued to the
respondent/DDA. The respondent/DDA filed the reply on
10.7.1998. The DDA admitted that the possession of
flat in question had been handed over to Mr. Kanwar
Bhan Malik. The case of the plaintiff for allotment
of an alternative flat was under consideration and
allotment would be made in due course. However, the
petitioner withdrew the complaint on the objection
raised by the DDA with regard to jurisdiction and
maintainability. The complaint was dismissed as
withdrawn. Hence the present petition.
3. Notice was issued to respondent/DDA by order
dated 12th October, 2000. Interim order as also
passed directing the respondent/DDA not to allot flat
No. 38, Block-C, Pocket-B, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi to
anyone else except the petitioner, if not already
allotted. The respondent/DDA in its counter affidavit
admitted that the petitioner was allotted a flat
No. 10, Block-D, Pocket-5, Rohini through draw of lots
held on 18.2.1991. Demand letter was issued to him on
the block dates of 20.9.1991-24.9.1991. the
petitioner was required to pay the amount latest by
23.12.1991. It was stipulated in the letter that if
the demanded amounts were not paid by 23.12.1991, the
allotment would be cancelled automatically. The
petitioner failed to comply with the instructions
contained in the allotment-cum-demand letter. Show
cause notice was issued to him. Despite show cause
notice having been issued to the petitioner, he failed
to comply with the instructions contained in the
demand letter. Thus, allotment was cancelled. The
case of the petitioner did not fall under the category
of double allotment. Status quo was directed by this
Court in respect of flat No. D-5/10, Sector-15, Rohini
and not for flat No. 10, Pocket-5, Block-B, Sector-5,
Rohini. The petition filed by Kanwar Bhan Malik was
dismissed in default on 19.2.1996. The petitioner has
approached this Court after 9 years of cancellation of
the flat and the petition being highly belated is
liable to be dismissed on the grounds of latches.
4. In rebuttal of the averments made in the
counter affidavit, the petitioner in his rejoinder
stated that since the respondent/DDA was not in a
position to give possession of the flat in question to
the petitioner, therefore, petitioner did not made
payments. Reliance is placed on Resolution No. 144/93
of respondent/DDA, annexure P-13 to the writ petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, perused the pleadings and considered the
documents on record. There is no appearance on behalf
of respondent/DDA.
6. The petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgments of this Court in Subhash Chander Chadha v.
DDA 72 (1998) DLT 413 and Dutt Raj Gupta v. DDA CW
587/95 decided on 31.1.1997 wherein this Court in
similar circumstances directed the respondent/DDA to
allot the flats to the petitioners on the same terms
and conditions and at the same costs at which the
earlier flat in the same area was allotted to them.
7. The DDA in the precis dated 16.11.1993
determined the scope of term of double allotment. The
relevant portions of the same read as under:-
“The terms double allotment signifies a
situation where one flat is allotted to two
different registrants either inadvertently or
due to inefficiency or corruption in the
allotment process. It takes place because of
incomplete property records and lack of
coordination between various branches of the
management wing. The process of allotment of a
specific flat involves conduct of a draw by
computer on the basis of information about
vacant flats made available to it by the
management wing. This information is fed into
the computer by verifying the property registers
which contains information about all the flats
made available to management wing by the
engineering wing after their completion. The
management wing is supposed to keep it updated
by filling details of allotment and possession.
If property register is not updated there is
every probability that a flat which is already
allotted and where possession has also been
taken over, would be shown as vacant and this is
fed into the computer at the time of draw. It
would again allotted to another registrant
causing double allotment. The cases of double
allotment take place only because a flat which
is allotted is shown as vacant and fit for
allotment by the management wing of the Housing
Department. Such wrong information can be fed
to the computer either inadvertently or
deliberately by a corrupt official for harassing
registrants. Whatever may be the case the
registrant is not at fault and responsibility of
double allotment solely lies with the DDA.”
8. Perusal of the allotment letters issued to
the petitioner and Mr. Kanwar Bhan Malik shows that
allotment was made to them in respect of flat No. 10,
Pocket-5, Block-D, Sector-15, Rohini. The allotment
of said flat was made in favor of Mr. Kanwar Bhan on
23-27.04.90 whereas the allotment in favor of
petitioner was made on 20-24.9.1991. It appears that
allotment of the Kanwar Bhan was cancelled and the
said flat was allotted to the petitioner later on.
Aggrieved by cancellation, Kanwar Bhan filed a writ
petition in this Court and this Court passed an
interim order in his favor on 7.5.1991 with regard to
the flat which was allotted to him. In light of the
same, the plea raised by the respondent/DDA in its
affidavit that there was no stay with regard to flat
in question cannot be sustained moreso, the
respondent/DDA in its reply before the Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum admitted that flat in
question was subjudice and possession of flat in
question was issued in favor of Mr. Kanwar Bhan
Malik as per directions of the courts.
9. The petitioner from the very beginning
informed the respondent/DDA in writing that the matter
pertaining to the flat allotted to him in the draw of
lots held on 18.2.1991 was sub-judice and requested
the respondent/DDA to settle the issue with the
petitioner in CW 1509/91. However, the respondent/DDA
issued a demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner
in respect of flat in question requiring him to
deposit the amount demanded within the specified
period. By letter dated 7.12.1991, the petitioner
requested the DDA that outcome of the petition be
informed to him in order to make payment in terms of
demand letter. By letter dated 19.12.1991, the
petitioner again wrote a letter to the DDA to the
effect that money would be deposited only after
getting confirmation that the petition filed by Kanwar
Bhan Malik has been decided and the allotment of flat
in question was no more stand in the name of Kanwar
Bhan. Since the title of the flat was not clear, the
petitioner did not deposit the amount. Despite the
fact that matter pertaining to flat in question was
sub-judice, the respondent/DDA issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner on 21.1.1992 asking him to
show cause, within 15 days as to why allotment of flat
in question in his favor be not cancelled and
cancelled the allotment in favor of the petitioner
thereafter. This act of the respondent/DDA was not
justified for the reasons that respondent/DDA despite
having knowledge that the matter pertaining to flat in
question was sub-judice issued a show cause notice to
the petitioner and cancelled the flat thereafter. The
petitioner was not at fault in not making the payment
as he already informed the respondent/DDA that matter
pertaining to flat in question was sub-judice and he
would deposit the amount after outcome of the decision
of the court case. The respondent/DDA ought to have
allotted another flat to the petitioner or in the
alternative deferred the demand. The respondent/DDA
failed to do so. It is admitted by the respondent/DDA
in the reply filed before the Consumer Forum that as
per orders of Court, the possession of flat in
question was given to Mr. Kanwar Bhan Malik. In
light of this admission, it is clear that the
respondent/DDA made an allotment of a flat which was
in dispute and the offer to the plaintiff was no offer
in the eyes of law. The plea of the respondent/DDA
that petition is barred by time is also not
sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the
case. Moreover the petitioner was compelled to
approach the consumer forum where DDA made admissions
supporting the case of the petitioner. Possession of
the flat was handed over the Mr. Kanwar Bhan Malik.
10. In light of the above discussion, the
petition is allowed. The respondent/DDA is directed
to allot flat No. 38, Block-C, Pocket-C, Sector-8,
Rohini, Delhi to the petitioner on the same terms and
conditions and at the same cost at which the earlier
flat was allotted to him. If the said flat is
allotted to some other person, the respondent/DDA
shall allot another flat to the petitioner in the same
locality/zone on the terms stated above.