Family to get DDA flat after 39 yrs of allotment

◗ The court said the case revealed a ‘ sordid state of affairs’ as the DDA has failed to maintain records

A family’s 39- year- long tireless wait for a DDA flat seems to be coming to an end with the Delhi high court directing the landowning agency to hand over its possession to the allottee while pulling it up for its “noncaring attitude.”

The court held cancellation of the flat’s allotment to the family as illegal and contrary to law. It said the case revealed a “sordid state of affairs” as the Delhi Development Authority ( DDA) has failed to maintain records.

A Delhi resident had applied for the flat in the DDA’s residential scheme in 1979 and was declared successful for the allotment. The man, JC Madan, died in 1984. His wife and son have been pursuing the matter with the authorities.

The court granted a decree in favour of Madan’s wife for a flat in Dwarka’s Sector 13 upon payment of Rs 10.16 lakh by them to the DDA by July 31. It directed the agency to hand over the flat’s possession to the family within four weeks of receiving the payment. It said in case the flat was not available, they should be given another one.

The court also said a copy of its order be sent to the lieutenant- governor and vice- chairman of DDA for issuing appropriate orders and directions with regard to maintenance of records by DDA. It told the agency to consider setting up an online feature on its portal to enable proper and complete tracking of current status of files and correspondence.

The court said the original record of the DDA was absolutely sketchy and it only contained few pages and there was no other document in it.

“This entire litigation after the allotment in 2002 could have been completely avoided if there was proper maintenance of correspondence by the DDA. The DDA would have known that there was a change of address through the letter sent by the plaintiffs. Even in 2006, the DDA came out with the policy for considering individual cases but it still did not consider the plaintiffs’ case,” the court added.