DDA Must Serve Allotment Letters at Both Residential and Occupational Addresses to Ensure Valid Service.

The Petitioner registered for an LIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS) 1979, providing both his residential and occupational addresses in the application form.

In 1984, the Petitioner informed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) of a change in his residential address.

In the year 2000, the DDA allotted the Petitioner a flat in Dwarka and issued a demand-cum-allotment letter.

The DDA claims it sent the letter to the updated residential address and, since it was not returned undelivered, presumed service.

The Petitioner contended he never received the letter and only learned of the allotment through a public notice in 2012.

He approached the Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation of his allotment and a writ of mandamus for an alternative allotment.

1. Whether the DDA is obligated to send allotment communications to all recorded addresses (both residential and occupational) furnished by an applicant to ensure effective service.

2. Whether a presumption of service can be drawn under Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in the absence of specific proof of delivery.

The DDA has an obligation to attempt service at all available addresses on file rather than relying on substituted service or press notices.

The responsibility lies on the DDA to provide proof of actual service, such as a registration acknowledgment card or post office certificate.

The presumption under Section 114 illustration (f) of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) regarding the common course of business cannot be invoked by the DDA to bypass its duty to provide proof of service.

The Court observed that the requirement to furnish both residential and occupational addresses in registration forms is not a "mere formality" but a mechanism to ensure "fairness and due process".

Since a house represents a "long-held aspiration" for citizens, the DDA must take reasonable and effective steps to communicate allotments.

The Court found that by failing to send the letter to the Petitioner’s occupational address, which was available on record, the DDA frustrated the purpose of collecting multiple contact points.

The DDA could not prove service simply by claiming the letter was not "received back undelivered"; without a postal certificate or acknowledgment card, the Petitioner could not be held to have "slept over his rights".

Applying the Mahinder Pal Sikri precedent, the Court held that the Petitioner should not suffer for the DDA's procedural failures.

The Court directed the DDA to allot the Petitioner a similar LIG flat in the same area/zone (Dwarka) through a mini-draw and to charge the rate applicable on the date the petition was filed (2013).