DDA must mutate a deceased registrant’s legal heir and cannot cancel allotment for a misaddressed demand letter.

Sh. Laxmi Narain Mittal, the petitioner’s father, registered under the DDA’s New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, for an LIG flat and was assigned priority No. 37988.

He died on 3 March 1988, following which the petitioner informed the DDA by letter dated 23 January 1989 and sought transfer of the registration in his name.

The DDA acknowledged the request on 10 March 1989 and sought documents and clarifications.

The petitioner claimed to have supplied the required documents, including originals, on 11 September 1989, but received no further communication.

In February 1999, the DDA allotted Flat No. 832, Group III, Pocket I, Sector 14, Dwarka, Phase II, against the registration, but issued the allotment-cum-demand letter in the name of the deceased original registrant.

The letter was returned with the endorsement “no such person,” resulting in cancellation of the allotment.

The petitioner learned of these events in October–November 2009 and filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking mutation and allotment of the flat, or an alternative similar flat.

Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when the petitioner had not pursued the matter between 1989 and 2009.

Whether the DDA acted illegally by issuing the allotment-cum-demand letter in the name of the deceased original registrant despite having been informed of his death and having received the petitioner’s request for transfer of registration.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to allotment of the flat originally allotted to his father, or a similar alternative flat, at the rate applicable on the date of filing the writ petition.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to review the legality and arbitrariness of the DDA’s administrative action.

Under the DDA’s policy for transfer of registration upon the death of the original registrant, the legal heir is to be informed of the required documents and, upon submission of those documents, the registration is to be processed for transfer and inclusion in a subsequent draw.

The DDA’s policy on mutation of allotment similarly requires processing of the legal heir’s claim upon submission of the prescribed documents and payment of the demanded amount.

The Court relied on Rajbal Singh Rathi v. DDA, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1594, for the principle that the DDA bears the responsibility of proving actual service of a demand-cum-allotment letter or other alleged communications through postal acknowledgements or equivalent evidence.

It further applied the principle in DDA v. Mahinder Pal Sikri, LPA No. 743/2013, that the price payable for the allotment is ordinarily determined with reference to the date on which the writ petition was filed, as the clock stops when the claimant approaches the Court.

The Court rejected the DDA’s plea of delay and laches because the petitioner had promptly informed it of his father’s death and had sought transfer of registration in 1989.

The DDA’s own letter dated 10 March 1989 demonstrated that it had knowledge of the death and had engaged with the petitioner’s request for mutation or transfer.

Consequently, there was no reasonable basis for the DDA to issue the 1999 allotment-cum-demand letter in the name of the deceased registrant.

The Court accepted the petitioner’s case that he had complied with the DDA’s document requirements by submitting the documents on 11 September 1989, while the DDA failed to explain why the registration was not mutated in his favour.

Although the DDA relied on alleged reminder letters dated 15 February 1991 and 1 March 1991, it could not produce a dak register, proof of dispatch, or proof of delivery; therefore, the Court declined to presume that those communications had been issued or served.

Since the allotment was cancelled because the DDA addressed the demand letter to a deceased person, the cancellation could not defeat the petitioner’s accrued entitlement.

The DDA was directed to allot Flat No. 832, Group III, Pocket I, Sector 14, Dwarka, Phase II, to the petitioner in accordance with law.

If that flat was unavailable, the DDA was directed to allot a similar flat corresponding to the petitioner’s entitlement.

The price was to be calculated at the rate applicable on 8 December 2009, the date of filing of the writ petition, in accordance with DDA v. Mahinder Pal Sikri.

The DDA was directed to provide the calculation within four weeks, after which the petitioner was to make payment and submit the documents for verification within a further four weeks; the allotment was to be made in accordance with DDA policy.