Presumption of service and writ limits on new factual pleas uphold cancellation of allotment.

Service of an allotment letter sent by registered post to the correct address carries a rebuttable presumption of receipt under the General Clauses Act and the Evidence Act. A writ court should not entertain a new disputed factual plea, such as non-receipt, when it was not raised before the statutory authorities and would require evidence and rebuttal. Because the respondent neither accepted the allotment nor made the required payment or executed the hire-purchase agreement, no concluded contract or enforceable right to allotment arose. The cancellation of the allotment and the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the cancellation of the allotment on the basis of alleged non-receipt of the allotment letter, and whether the authorities' finding that the respondent failed to accept the allotment and make payment could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The allotment letter was sent by registered post to the correct address and, in the absence of a rebuttal, a presumption of service arose under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 Ill.(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The respondent had not raised the plea of non-receipt before the appellate or revisional authorities and sought to introduce a new factual case for the first time in the writ petition, which required evidence and could not be entertained without affording the authority an opportunity to controvert it. The authorities had found that the respondent neither sent acceptance nor deposited the stipulated amount nor executed the hire-purchase agreement, so no concluded contract or enforceable right to allotment had come into existence.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unwarranted, and the cancellation of the allotment, along with the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities, was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the statutory orders cancelling the allotment were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should not entertain a new disputed factual plea raised for the first time without evidence, and service of an allotment or notice sent by registered post to the correct address carries a rebuttable presumption of receipt.

---