Dharma Nand vs Delhi Development Authority

Court
Delhi High Court

$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 16.04.2026

+ W.P.(C) 70/2013
DHARMA NAND .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. K. Saini & Mr. Abhishek,
Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gaurav Dua along with
Mrs. Ayushi Tyagi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH


: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )


1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following prayers:-
“a) A Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case
for perusal;
b) A Writ of Certiorari quashing the action of the
respondent/DDA in canceling the allotment of the allotted
flat without serving the allotment cum demand letter in
respect thereof upon the Petitioner and thereafter, refusing to
allot an alternative flat in the same area/ zone, being illegal,
arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and without jurisdiction
and in violation of the Rules, Regulations and Policy and the
Principles of Equity, Justice and Good Conscience;
c) A Writ of Mandamus directing the DDA to forthwith allot
W.P.(C) 70/2013 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:54

an alternative LIG flat to the Petitioner in the same area /
zone, where the Petitioner was allotted the flat earlier i.e.
Dwarka by way of a mini draw and issue him the allotment
cum demand letter in respect thereof at the old cost + interest
(limited to current cost) and give him possession of the same
immediately after payment and also execute the conveyance
deed. . . .”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was registered with the
respondent No. 1 i.e., Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) under the
New Pattern Registration Scheme (“NPRS”) vide application No. 37837
for allotment of an LIG Flat.
3. At the time of registration, in the registration form, the petitioner
furnished his address as 50/90, Raja Bazar, New Delhi-110001, where
he resided at that relevant time.
4. Since the petitioner was working in Northern Railways at that time, the
occupational address was also furnished in the form as C/o Sr.
Electrical Foreman, Air Conditioned Coaches, Northern Railways, New
Delhi.
5. In 1983-1984, the petitioner shifted his residence to F/38-A, Gali No.
4A, Poorvi Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110091 and the DDA was duly informed
of the change of address by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner in the year 1999 was put in draw of lots by the DDA and
was allotted Flat No. 473, Second Floor, Pocket-2, Sector 14, Dwarka,
Delhi. Pursuant thereto, a demand-cum-allotment letter dated
30.03.2000 to 13.04.2000 was issued.
W.P.(C) 70/2013 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:54

7. As per the respondent DDA, the demand-cum-allotment was sent to the
petitioner at his changed/updated address i.e., F-38/A, Gali No. 4A,
Poorvi Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110091 and was presumed to have been
served upon the petitioner as the DDA did not receive the postal envelop
back marked as undelivered.

8. On the other hand, the petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was never
served with the demand-cum-allotment letter and it was only in
December, 2012 that the petitioner came across a public notice dated
22.11.2012 issued by the DDA regarding the NPRS Scheme allotments
stating that allotments have been made to all the registrants under the
said scheme and no allotment is pending. Thereafter, the petitioner
approached the DDA.
9. The petitioner made a representation to DDA stating that
demand-cum-allotment letter dated 30.03.2000 to 13.04.2000 was not
received by him but to no avail. Hence, the present petition has been
filed.
10. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents
available on record.
11. Mr. Dua, learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the
demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the petitioner at his address,
the same was not received back undelivered and hence, the respondent
concluded that the petitioner was duly served. As, the petitioner, despite
service of demand-cum-allotment letter, chose to sleep over his rights,
now he cannot claim allotment.
12. He also contends that question whether the demand-cum-allotment letter
was received or not is a disputed question of fact for which detailed
W.P.(C) 70/2013 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:54

appreciation of evidence will be required and hence, the present petition
cannot be entertained.
13. He further relies on Section 114 illustration (f) of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, (Section 119 illustration (f) of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023) to state that there is a presumption which operates in
favour of the respondent as once the demand-cum-allotment letter dated
30.03.2000 to 13.04.2000 has been sent at the address of the petitioner, it
may be presumed by the Court that in common course of business where
usual course of post is not interrupted, the common course has been
followed and the letter has been duly served.
14. I am unable to agree with this contention of the petitioner as the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No. 17 of the judgment dated
28.11.2013 passed in LPA 743/2013 titled D.D.A. vs. Mahinder Pal
Sikri has made the following observations:
“17. The DDA admits that the occupational address of all the
writ petitioners was available on its file (with two exceptions,
i.e. LPA 346/2013 and 369/2013). This being the case, it is
clear that an obligation lay on the DDA to attempt to inform the
writ petitioners’ at all available addresses, rather than
substitute this obligation for a press notice. Indeed, neither the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Wazir Chand (supra) and
Banda Development Authority, Banda (supra) nor the various
judgments of this Court relied upon by the DDA displace this
principle, on which the learned Single Judge rightly based his
decision. Indeed, as regards the two appeals mentioned above
wherein there was only one address, it is admitted by the DDA
W.P.(C) 70/2013 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:54

that the letters were sent to the wrong addresses through
mistakes of the DDA’s clerks, and crucially, for no fault of the
writ petitioners. After those letters came back undelivered, the
DDA did not, at any point, try to go into the matter to determine
whether indeed the letters were sent to the wrong addresses. In
such a case, it does not lie in the DDA’s mouth to claim that the
writ petitioners’ are liable to suffer, and their allotments be
cancelled, on account of a mistake committed by the DDA
itself.”
15. Even though the facts in the aforesaid judgment are a little different as in
that case the demand-cum-allotment letter was undelivered/not even sent
to the new changed address (informed to DDA). I am of the view that the
principle enunciated in the said judgment would apply to the facts of the
case of the petitioner.
16. I am of the view that once it is on record that the DDA had two addresses
of the applicant i.e., residential and occupational, it is the duty of the
DDA to send demand-cum-allotment letters at both the given addresses
otherwise the whole purpose of an application having columns for two
addresses would be rendered redundant.
17. The requirement to furnish two addresses namely, the residential and
occupational addresses in the registration form is not a mere formality or
an ornamental requirement. The purpose of such a practice is aimed to
ensure that the applicant is sent every communication regarding his/her
allotment and every attempt is made to effectively serve the said
communication upon the applicant. The residential address usually
reflects the place where the applicant primarily resides and the
W.P.(C) 70/2013 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:54

occupational address indicates a place of business or a place where the
applicant carries on his/her occupation. To my mind, by recording both
the addresses, the DDA is obliged to send demand-cum-allotment letters
to both addresses, thereby reducing the likelihood of the applicant
missing out on such an important communication as for a large section
of Indian population including the petitioner, a house represents the
fulfilment of a long held aspiration of having a permanent roof over
one’s head.
18. I am of the view that the failure of DDA to utilise all available recorded
addresses not only frustrates the purpose of collecting such addresses but
also undermines the principles of fairness and due process, which at the
very least demands that communication of such a letter having decisive
bearing on important rights of an individual needs to be communicated
in a reasonable and effective manner. Accordingly, in order to ensure
that no prejudice is caused by the non-receipt, it is important that the
DDA should have sent the demand-cum-allotment letter to both the
addresses.
19. In the matter of Rajbal Singh Rathi v. DDA, 2013 SCC OnLine Del
1594 , a Coordinate Bench has made the observation that the
responsibility is vested with the DDA to show that the
demand-cum-allotment letter was actually served upon the petitioner.
For the said reasons, a certificate of post office, registration
acknowledgment due card, etc. or some proof should be filed by the
DDA. Hence, the reliance of the respondent on illustration (f) of Section
114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 119 illustration (f) of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) is also misconceived.
W.P.(C) 70/2013 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:54

20. In the absence of the same, the requirement to serve notice on both the
addresses becomes even more imperative.
21. Due to non-service of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner has been
divested of a valuable right which cannot be done away in a cursory
manner and/or in a summary manner.

22. Since the scheme is of the year 1979, I am conscious that the said flats
may not be available. For the said reasons, I am of the view that, in
accordance with paragraph No. 18 of Mahinder Pal Sikri (Supra), the
respondent shall allot similar flat at similar rate as the rate applicable on
the date of filing of the petition.
23. If no rates are available for the said year, the rates of similar flats shall be
scaled up (if for the previous years) or scaled down (if for subsequent
years).
24. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with pending
applications, if any.




JASMEET SINGH, J
APRIL 16, 2026 / (MS)
(Corrected and released on 29.04.2026)



W.P.(C) 70/2013 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:54