Delhi High Court
Lajwanti Bhatia vs Delhi Development Authority on 20 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 VIAD Delhi 755, 81 (1999) DLT 893
Author: C Mahajan
Bench: C Mahajan
JUDGMENT
C.K. Mahajan, J.
1. Rule.
This is yet another case of double allotment wherein the flat allotted to the petitioner was allotted to some other person. The petitioner's representations for allotment of an alternative flat have been ignored by the respondents. The common man is again at the receiving end and has to run from pillar to post for the enforcement of his legitimate rights.
2. It is a sad commentary on the functioning of our statutory bodies. After 52 years of independence we claim to be free citizens of this Court but we are slaves in the hands of the statutory authorities. Instead of realising their mistake and making the alternative allotment and issuing a demand-cum-allotment letter the petitioner has been compelled to approach the Court for redressal of his grievances.
3. A scheme was announced by the DDA for allotment of flats, namely, New Pattern Registration Scheme - 1979 under the Delhi Development (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968. The petitioner applied for allotment of a MIG flat and was registered under the said Scheme in the year 1979. The petitioner was declared successful for allotment of a flat in 1991 and flat No. 50-C, Pocket-A, Nand Nagri, Delhi was allotted to the petitioner at the cost of Rs. 3,17,300/- on cash down basis vide allotment letter dated 20th September, 1991. When the petitioner went to the site of the allotted flat she was shocked to find that the said flat had already been allotted to one Gian Chand on 26th May, 1988. This fact was certified by the Zonal Engineer. In the circumstances the petitioner represented to the Deputy Director (Housing) and other officials of the DDA bringing to their notice that the flat allotted to her had already been in possession of some other person and requesting for an alternative flat on the terms and conditions on which the original flat was allotted to her. The petitioner was assured from time-to-time that the allotment would be made,. The petitioner represented her case in the public hearing. A representation was also made to the Vice-Chairman, DDA, The petitioner lost patience and moved this Court for relief.
4. On the 6th May, 1998, the Court issued notice to show cause to the respondents and an interim order was also passed directing the respondents to maintain status quo in respect of flat No. 1-C, Phase-II, Pocket III, Second Floor, situated at Kondli Gharoli Delhi.
5. Counsel for the respondent stated at the outset that the respondents have decided to allot a flat No. 19-C, Second Floor, Pocket A, Nand Nagri, to the petitioner as it is not possible to allot the flat reserved for the petitioner in terms of the order dated 6th May, 1998 as the same was also allotted to some other person before the passing of the interim order.
6. A good number of such petitions are being filed by the persons.Instead of resolving this issue and giving relief to the allottees the DDA is complicating the issue by their inaction. Through its advertisements DDA claims efficiency, promptness and courteous service with a dedication to integrity and fairness and quality product at reasonable costs. The conduct and action of the respondent is contrary to their advertisements bordering on harassment and torture. Apparently, the record of allotment is not being maintained by the DDA and/or the respondents are negligent and careless, resulting in double allotment.
7. It may be noted that in 1995 a policy decision was taken by the DDA to hold fresh draw of lots for all such persons who were covered in case of double allotment of the same type, in the same zone, same area and on the same costs.
8. The petitioner's case is covered by judgments of this Court in Subhash Chander Chadha Vs. DDA, 72 (1998) DLT 413 and Dutt Raj Gupta, Vs. D.D.A. CW. 587/97 decided on 31.1.1997.
9. Following the aforesaid decision of this Court the petition is allowed.
10. The respondents are directed to allot to the petitioner forthwith flat No. 19-C, Second Floor, Pocket A, Nand Nagri, on the same terms and conditions and at the same costs at which the earlier flat was allotted to him in September, 1991. The respondents are also directed to hand over physical possession of the said flat to the petitioner on completion of usual formalities within six weeks from today.
11. The petitioner is also entitled to costs which are quantified at Rs. 7,500/-
Writ Petition allowed with costs.
