DHARAM PAL vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THE complainant was registered under the New Pattern Scheme for allotment of a Janta category flat to him in the reserved category of scheduled caste. In the draw of lots held on 15.3 1984, flat No. 223-C, Pocket BC (SF), Shalimar Bagh was allotted to him. THE flat was, however, not allotted to him on the ground that at the time of making the application the said applicant was a minor. THE applicant filed a complaint before District Forum-II on the ground that several other applicants, who were minors at the time of registration, had been allotted flats under the same scheme. THEre was no reason to discriminate against the complainant. It was placed that even though in the High School Certificate the complainant''s date of birth was entered as 21.1.1964, in fact, he was born on 27.7.1963. THE case was contested. THE District Forum dismissed the complaint. It was observed that the case of the complainant was distinguishable from those of some other applicants on the ground that even though the minors were debarred from applying, those other persons had truly stated the fact that they were minors at the time of the application and yet their applications had been entertained. THE complainant, on the other hand, had mis- represented himself to have attained majority at the time of making the application. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

WE have heard the appellant and Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondent and have perused the record. It is not disputed before us that by a later decision DDA allotted flats to the applicants, who were successful in the aforesaid draw where the applicant had crossed the age of 16 on the date of making the application. The only question which remains to be examined is, whether the case of the complainant is to be treated on a different footing. One of the grounds on which the case of the complainant is sought to be distinguished from that of others is that the other applicants had crossed the age of 16 at the date of making the application, the complainant was 15 years 8 months and 6 days old on the date of making the application. This is a distinction without a difference as far as the question of principle is concerned. If under the relaxed policy flats could be allotted to those who had completed the age of 16, we see no reason why a person who had completed more than 15 years and 8 months should have been left out. No nexus has been brought to our notice justifying the completion of 16 years with the object sought to be achieved. That apart, the complainant has produced cogent evidence to show that, in fact his date of birth was 27.7.1963. He has placed on record copy of the entry in the Register of Births maintained under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. According to the entry a son was born to Sh. Pyare Lal on 27.7.1963. The complainant has filed his affidavit to the effect that he was the eldest male child of his parents and no male child elder to him had been born to the said parents. It is settled law that evidentiary value to be attached to various pieces of evidence such as entry in the Register of Births, or school record or other documents would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Broadly speaking the entry from the Birth Register deserves to be given greater evidentiary value compared to the entry in the school record especially where the person who got admitted the child to the school and the basis on which he filled in the date of birth of the child at the time of admission to the school have not been satisfactorily brought on record. We, therefore, hold that the birth entry from the Register of Births deserves to be given preference to the date of birth entered in the school register and keeping that entry in view the applicant had crossed the age of 16 on the date of making the application. He is, therefore, covered by the policy decision of the DDA and was entitled to be allotted flat on the original terms and conditions. In case, the flat already allotted to him, namely flat No. 223-C, Pocket BC (SF), Shalimar Bagh is not available, a flat of similar description preferably in the same locality shall be allotted to him on the original terms and conditions and the amount already deposited by him shall duly given credit.

The complainant has been put to considerable harassment and mental agony in being deprived of allotment even though under the revised policy persons who had crossed the age of 16 had been allotted flats. We deem it just and fair that the complainant is given Rs. 5,000/- as compensation in addition to the relief of allotment as stated above. We allow the complaint in these terms. The allotment shall be made within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties be informed. Complaint allowed.