G. Akash vs The Delhi Development Authority & ...
1999 Latest Caselaw 83 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The writ petitioner h s ch llenged the c ncell tion of llotment of Fl t No.120 SFS, Sheikh S r i, Ph seI, New Delhi, by order d ted 27.3.1985 nd the llotment of fl t subsequently in 1989 to the third respondent, Shri B.N.Th p r. The f cts culmin ting in the filing of the writ petition c n be st ted in the following terms:

2. The f ther of the petitioner, Professor Mr. L te G. B l krishn R o w s employed s Professor in the School of Pl nning nd rchitecture, New Delhi. Pursu nt to the dvertisement by the DD , the f ther of the petitioner pplied for membership in the scheme nnounced by the resondent, DD , properly known s Self Fin ncing Scheme, herein fter referred to s the scheme. Certific te of registr tion No.1525 w s issued by the first respondent on the 9th of J nu ry, 1979 in lieu of the cknowledgment to the deposit of Rs.10,000/ by the f ther of the petitioner. The f ther of the petitioner w s given the llotment letter nd the s me re ds s under :

"Sub: lloc tion of fl t in C tegory II under SelfFin ncing Scheme, Sheikh S r i, Resdl. Scheme.

De r Sir,

With reference to your pplic tion No. 4216 d ted on the bove cited subject, I m directed to inform you th t you h ve been decl red successful for the lloc tion of fl t on first floor/Type of C tegory II( 3) in Sheikh S r i, Residenti l Self Fin ncing Scheme in the dr w of lots held on 25.3.80. The lloc tion is subject to the terms nd conditions s stipul ted in the DD (M n gement & mp; Dispos l of Housing Est tes) Regul tions, 1968.

2. The estim ted cost of the fl t comes to Rs. 76,000/ which is subject to revision on the completion of fl ts. You re, there fore, requested to deposit sum of Rs.8,171/ (Rupees Eight thous nd one hundred & mp; seventy one only) s per det ils below within one month from the d te of issue of this letter f iling which the lloc tion is li ble to be c ncelled : (i) Tot l estim ted cost Rs. 76,000of the fl t(ii) mount of Ist Rs. 19,000Inst lment/Three Inst lments.(iii) mount lre dy () Rs.10,000deposited vide Deposit Receipt No.4323 dt._____(iv) Interest ccrued () Rs. 829on the bove deposit upto the d te of specific dr w.Tot l (iii) + (iv) () Rs.10,829Inst lment/Three Inst lments.v) Net mount p y ble Rs. 8,171

3. On the 21st of M y, 1980, dem nd letter w s issued by the DD . On the 19th of June, 1980, the f ther of the petitioner wrote to the DD in the following terms:

"With reference to the Dem nd letter No. F10 149/80/1525/SFS d ted 21.5.80 issued by the Dy. Director (H)I, I m enclosing herewith 4th copy of the Dr ft Receipt No.31719 d ted 31.1.79 long with the Deposit Receipt No. 4323 d ted 18.1.79 for Rs.10,000/. The Deposit Receipt is disch rged by ffixing Revenue St mp of p ise 20 t its b ck nd cknowledging receipt of the p yment g inst it through djustment ccount. My p rticu l rs re s under: (1) N me : G.B. Krishn R o(2) Loc lity in : Sheikh S r i which lloc tion is m de(3) C tegory of Fl t : II(4) Mount of Regist rion : Rs.10,000/ Deposit shown in the Dem nd Letter(5) mount of interest : Rs. 829/ shown in the Dem nd Letter(6) D te of Dr w : 25.3.80

4. On the 5th of November, 1980, the School of Pl nning & mp; rchitecture, the employer of the f ther of the petitioner, wrote to the f ther of the petitioner directing him to furnish cert in documents for the purpose of considering his pplic tion for the gr nt of lo n for the purch se of fl t. On the 8th of J nu ry, 1981, the DD wrote to the f ther of the petitioner in the following terms:

"I m directed to refer to the Dem ndCum lloc tion letter of even No. d ted 21.5.80 on the bove subject lloc ting to you fl t in Block/Floor Ist C tegory 3 t Sheikh S r i Residenti l Scheme through dr w of lots held on __________ nd dd to s y th t in ccord nce with the terms & mp; condition of the s me nd keeping in view the progress of constructions of the fl ts t site, the IInd inst lment mount s per det ils given below h s become due. 1. Estim ted cost of fl t : Rs. 76,0002. mount of IInd inst l : Rs.15,200 ment (20% of the estim ted cost of the fl t)

You re, therefore, requested to m ke the p yment of Rs.15,200/ (Rupees Fifteen thous nd two hundred only) within one month from the d te of issue of this letter f iling which the llotment is likely to be c ncelled nd pen lty for the s me will be ch rged s per terms & mp; conditions of the Dem ndCum lloc tion Letter referred to in p r 1 bove."

5. For the purpose of getting lo n from his employer, the f ther of the petitioner requested the DD to permit him to mortg ge the fl t to his employer. By letter d ted the 21st of J nu ry, 1981, the DD st ted, inter li , th t :

" n ssur nce is hereby given th t the DD sh ll gr nt the mort g ge permission fter completion of the fl ts in f vour of School of Pl nning nd rchitecture, New Delhi. The title of the l nd on which the fl t is being constructed vests with the DD is free from ll incumbr nces. The ssur nce is gr nted subject to the condition to furnish copy of NOC under the L nd Ceiling ct, 1976."

6. On the 2nd of Febru ry, 1981, the School of Pl nning & mp; rchitecture, New Delhi too h d gr nted lo n of Rs.60,000/ to the f ther of the petitioner.

7. On the 2nd of Febru ry, 1981, trip rtite greement ( nnexure P17) w s executed between the f ther of the petitioner, the DD nd the employer of the f ther of the petitioner. Cl use 6 of the trip rtite greement re ds s under:

"THIS GREEMENT m de this Second d y of Febru ry One Thous nd Nine Hundred Eighty One between Professor G.B. Krishn R o son of L te G.L. K nth R o residing t E71, Gre ter K il sh II, New Delhi t present serving s Professor of Pl nning herein fter c lled the 'Borrower' (which expression sh ll unless excluded by or repugn nt to the context be deemed to include his/her heirs, executors, dministr tors nd leg l represent tives) of the first p rt, the Delhi Development uthority, St tutory Body h ving its Office t the Director, School of Pl nning nd rchitecture, New Delhi herein fter c lled the School of the Third P rt.

WHERE S the borrower desires to purch se re dy built fl t from the uthority under its Self Fin ncing Housing Registr tion Scheme (herein fter referred to s 'the s id scheme') which envis ges llotment of re dy built fl ts fter period of 2 ye rs & mp; p yment of the cost of construction in inst lments s mentioned in the brochure of the s id scheme.

ND WHERE S the borrower h s under the provisions of the rules fr med by the School to regul te the gr nt of dv nces to its employees for building houses, etc., (herein fter referred to s the s id Rules including ny modific tions thereof) pplied to the School for n dv nce of Rs. 60,000 (Rupees Sixty Thous nd) only to purch se fl t under the s id scheme nd the School h s s nctioned n dv nce of Rs. 60,000/ to the Borrower vide School letter No. F. 118/80/SP / &S d ted 2nd Febru ry 1981 copy of which is nnexed to these presents for the purpose fores id on the terms nd conditions set forth therein.

In consider tion of the sum of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten thous nd only) lre dy deposited by the Borrower s initi l mount of registr tion deposit with the uthority under the s id scheme for the purch se of re dy built fl t nd the sum of Rs.60,000/ (Rupees Sixty thous nd only) to be p id by the School directly to the uthority on beh lf of borrower, it is hereby greed to by & mp; between the p rties hereto s follows:

(1) On the receipt of n ssur nce from the uthority th t the fl t will be llotted to the School Serv nt the borrower herein, the mount of House Building dv nce permissible will be s nc tioned to the borrower but the ctu l p yment will be m de to the uthority directly by the School s follows:

( ) 25% of the tent tive cost of dwelling unit (including the mount p id s registr tion deposit) within one month of the d te of the dem nd letter fter the lloc tion by dr w of lots; &

(b) 65% of the tent tive cost of dwelling unit in three inst l ments mounting to 20%, 25% & mp; 20% respectively on dem nd t ny time fter three months of the d te of the issue of dem nd letter fter the lloc tion of dr w of lots.

(c) The fin l prices of the fl t will be determined before t king possession of the fl t & mp; 10% of the b l nce of the mount will be p id t the time of t king possession.

The mount in excess of the mount of H.B. . permissible nd s nctioned to the borrower will be p id by the borrower to the uthority directly so s to m ke the p yment to the DD in the m nner s mentioned hereinbefore.

In c se there is ny del y in p yment of the inst lment by the School or the borrower in either c se it will be tre ted de f ult on the p rt of the borrower nd borrower sh ll be li ble to p y pen lty @ 12% p. . on del yed p yment.

(2) The uthority will m int in sep r te ccount for borrower nd djust the p yment of dv nce received by it from the School g inst the cost of construction of p rticul r c tegory of fl t pplied by him.

(3) On completion of the fl t, its possession will be h nded over to the borrower forthwith long with the title thereto on le se hold right b sis who will mortg ge the fl t within three months to the Director, School of Pl nning nd rchitecture s security for the s id dv nce. He should lso furnish ll the necess ry certific tes for the purpose of registr tion.

(4) The cost of the fl t, if in excess of the mount of the House Building dv nce s nctioned, will be borne nd p id by the bor rower.

(5) The borrower is to rep y to the School the s id mount of Rs.60,000/ (Rupees Sixth Thous nd only) by fifty monthly inst l ments of Rs.1200/ nd interest c lcul ted in ccord nce with p r gr ph 7 mentioned below by sixteen monthly inst lments from his p y commencing from the month of September One Thous nd Nine Hundred Eighty Two or from the month following obt ining of the possession of the fl t whichever is e rlier nd the borrower hereby uthorises the School to m ke such deductions from his monthly p y, le ve s l ry nd subsistence llow nce bills.

(6) If the borrower w nts to withdr w from the scheme or f ils to p y the b l nce mount representing the difference between the House Building dv nce s nctioned by the School nd the ctu l cost of the fl t, or quits the service of the School or dies, the mount of the House Building dv nce will be refunded forthwith to the School. The mount of initi l deposit of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thous nd only) will be refunded to the borrower or his leg l heirs, s the c se m y be, by the uthority fter deducting such mount s m y be p y ble by him s communic ted in the brochure.

Provided further th t in the event the borrower quits the service of the School or dies, s the c se m y be, the terms of this greement s pplic ble to the uthority nd the borrower sh ll be deemed to continue nd sh ll lw ys be deemed to h ve been continued irrespective of the f ct th t in rel tion to the School this greement h s come to n end.

(7) The r te of interest of HB for the first Rs.25,000/ is 6 1/2% for the next 25,001 to 50,000/ is 8% & mp; 50,001 to 70,000 is 10%. The Delhi Development uthority under the s id scheme will p y to the School interest @ 7% p. . for the period beyond 21/2 ye rs till the fl t is offered for possession. ny g in in inter est in this w y will ccrue to the School.

(8) The st mp duty if ny p y ble on these presents sh ll be borne nd p id by the School."

8. On the 4th of Febru ry, 1981, there w s n greement between the f ther of the petitioner nd his employer. On the 3rd of September, 1981, the DD wrote to the f ther of the petitioner m king dem nd for Rs.19,000/ being the third inst lment of the p yment of the estim ted cost of Rs.70,000/. On the 30th of September, 1981, the sum of Rs.19,000/ w s p id by the f ther of the petitioner. On the 25th of Febru ry, 1982, the DD m de dem nd for Rs.2,800/ tow rds the estim ted cost of scooter g r ge being Rs. 4,000/ nd th t mount w s p id on the 25th of M rch, 1982. On the 23rd of ugust, 1982, the DD m de dem nd on the f ther of the petitioner for p yment of Rs. 15,200/ being the 4th inst lment. On the 17th of September, 1982, the sum of Rs. 16,000/ w s p id tow rds 4th inst lment of fl t of Rs. 15,200/ nd Rs. 800/ tow rds the cost of scooter g r ge.

9. On the 9th of ugust, 1983, the DD sent the following letter to the f ther of the petitioner.

"With reference to the dem ndcum lloc tion letter of even No. d ted 21.5.83 on the subject noted bove lloc ting to you fl t No.120 under C tII t Sheikh S r i Residenti l Scheme through dr w of lots held on 23.5.19083. I m to st te th t the construc tion of the fl t is complete nd in ccord nce with the terms nd conditions of lloc tion/ llotment, the p yment of the 5th nd fin l inst lment s per det ils given below h s become due: 1. Tot l estim ted Rs.1,14,000 cost of the fl t2. mount lre dy Rs. 68,400 dem nded tow rds cost (excluding interest, if ny)3. B l nce mount s Rs. 45,900 5th nd fin l inst lment of the fl t.4. Document l ch rge Rs. 455. Ground Rent for the Rs. 02 first two ye rs @ Rs.1/ per ye r.6. Service ch rges for Rs. 122/50 first two ye rs @ Rs.1/ per ye r. 7. Tot l mount Rs. 46,069/50 p y ble.

Rs. 46,069/50 (Rs. Forty six thous nd sixty nine & mp; p ise fifty only.) within one month from the d te of issue of this letter, f iling which the possession of the fl t will not be h nded over to you nd ction will be t ken for c ncell tion of the fl t.

ny def ult in p yment would ent il the levy of pen l interest @ 12% p. . beyond the due d te. In c se you h ve not m de the p yment of inst lments e rlier dem nded nd the mount so due from you up till now you re lso requested to p y the s me long with the interest within the prescribed period. The possession of the fl t will be given only on receipt of p yment in full nd on production of the documents mentioned below:

1. ffid vit on nonjudici l st mp p per of Rs. 2/ duly ttested by M gistr te/SubJudge/Not ry Public. Not ri l st mp of Rs. 3/ should be fixed on the ffid vit, if it is got ttested by the not ry public.

2. Proof in respect of the deposit of 4th copy of ch ll n/c sh receipt rel ting to the registr tion deposit given by this office nd lso the FDR issued to you with n endorsement thereon 'RECEIVED P YMENT' on revenue st mp of 20 p ise on the b ck of the deposit receipt, if not lre dy surrendered.

Ple se note th t the possession letter will be issued to you person lly nd in c se on ccount of some re son you re not ble to t ke over the possession, the possession c n be h nded over to your Speci l Power of ttorney, which should be duly ttested from the M gistr te on nonjudici l st mp p per of Rs. 2/.

In order to remove the h rdship, it h s been decided to h nd over possession of the fl t to you before the execution nd registr tion of convey nce deed provided in the DD (M n gement & mp; Dispos l of Housing Est tes) Regul tion, 1968 provided you submit n undert king (specimen enclosed) on nonjudici l st mp p per of Rs. 2/ duly ttested by M gistr te/SubJudge/Not ry Public, extr not ri l st mp worth Rs. 3/ m y be ffixed on the under t king.

The property is being offered on ' S IS WHERE IS' b sis. The DD will not entert in ny request for ddition nd lter tion or ny compl int wh tsoever reg rding property circumst nces s defined in p r 19 of the Regul tions or bout the design, qu lity of m teri l used workm nship or ny other defect.

Le se for l nd under the fl t will commence w.e.f. 1.8.1983 you sh ll therefore, be li ble to p y ground rent for the s id l nd @ Rs.1/ p. . for the first two ye rs w.e.f.1.8.83 in dv nce ( lre dy included in the dem nd letter) nd there fter @ Rs.122/50 p. . c lcul ted @ 21/2% of the premium of the l nd mounting to Rs. 4,900/ in respect of your fl t. This r te is subject to revision fter every 30 ye rs. The mount will be p y ble in dv nce every ye r by the llottee nd the dem nd letter will be issued by the DD . Interest @ 10% p. . or such other r te s m y be decided by the uthority from time to time sh ll be ch rged for the del y in p yment of ground rent.

The possession of the fl t will be h nded over to you t site by the office of the Executive Engineer concerned. It is mentioned herewith th t you will h ve to p y service ch rges nnu lly @ Rs.122/50 (Rupees One hundred twenty two & mp; p ise fifty only) till the services of the scheme re h nded over to the MCD."

10. There is no d te s to when it w s ctu lly disp tched by the DD .

11. On the 15th of ugust, 1983, the f ther of the petitioner, G. B l krish n R o, died.

12. It is t this st ge the position of the petitioner h s to be recounted before we revert b ck to the subsequent correspondence between the mother of the petitioner nd the DD .

13. On the 7th of June, 1971, the f ther of the petitioner m rried the mother of the petitioner who w s then c lled Sus n George. She converted herself to be Hindu nd w s n med Suj t . On the 7th of M y, 1972, the petitioner w s born in the Holy F mily Hospit l, Green P rk, New Delhi. The m rit l rel tionship between the p rents did not continue nd there w s decree for divorce on the 14th of M y, 1976 nd the custody of the petitioner w s with the f ther. Therefore, the position w s th t the petitioner w s living with the f ther without ny m tern l c re from the mother, Suj t . t the time of the de th of the f ther of the petitioner in 1983, the petitioner w s 11 ye rs old. The mother took some interest in the petitioner nd she cont cted the DD .

14. On the 3rd of December, 1983, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the DD requesting it to give det ils bout the b l nce due nd lso requested for forms nd documents to be executed for the completion of the form lities. There w s no reply from the DD . On the 3rd of Febru ry, 1984, the mother, on beh lf of the petitioner, wrote, through counsel, following letter to the DD :

"I ct on beh lf of my fores id client nd under his instruc tions nd on his beh lf I h ve to ddress you in the following circumst nces:

1. Th t on or bout 3rd December, 1983, I wrote to you vide copy of the letter enclosed dvising you th t Shri G.V. Krishn R o, the llottee of House No.120 under C tegoryII of Sheikh S r i Residenti l Scheme h d since expired nd th t my fores id client is the only leg l heir who is entitled to succeed to the est te of the dece sed. Th t my client s such is entitled in l w to the llotment of the s id house in his n me subject to, of course, ny p yment which rem ined to be p id for the house.

2. Th t I h d lso requested you to dvise me the b l nce mount to be p id nd lso requested you to let me h ve the necess ry nd requisite forms nd documents which need to be executed before the form lities re completed.

3. Th t lthough more th n 2 months h ve p ssed, I h ve not he rd nything from you nd in these circumst nces I m dvisedly issuing this reminder to request you to kindly expedite the m tter urgently.

4. I m enclosing copy of my e rlier communic tion d ted 3rd December, 1983 which w s delivered in your office in person.

n e rly ction is solicited".

15. It w s sent by registered post. But there w s no reply. On the 20th of Febru ry, 1984, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the Director, School of Pl nning & mp; rchitecture requesting for the det ils bout the p yments th t the petitioner would be entitled to receive on the de th of the f ther of the petitioner. The mother in this letter would dmit the receipt of the letter d ted the 9th of ugust, 1983 fter the de th of the f ther of the petitioner, wherein the DD h d dem nded the sum of Rs. 46,069.50.

16. On the 11th of pril, 1984, the employer of the f ther of the petitioner, the School of Pl nning & mp; rchitecture, I.P. Est te, New Delhi, directed the mother of the petitioner to get herself ppointed s leg l gu rdi n of the petitioner nd produce certific te to th t effect.

17. On the 22nd of M y, 1984, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the DD st ting th t the letter d ted the 9th of ugust, 1983 w s received on the 16th of ugust, 1983, th t is, the next d y fter the de th of the f ther of the petitioner. She h d lso st ted in the letter th t she w s t king steps to get the funds from the employer of the f ther of the petitioner nd she h d lre dy m de n pplic tion for the gr nt of succession certific te nd the Court h d fixed the c se for fin l he ring on the 22nd of M y, 1984 nd she w nted time to m ke the deposit. She h d dded note th t the le rned dministr tive SubJudge, Tis H z ri, Delhi h d djourned the c se to the 28th of November, 1984, th t is, ne rly fter n interv l of six months. On the 17th of November, 1984, the DD c lled upon the mother of the petitioner to intim te the l test position of the c se reg rding the gr nt of succession certific te for further ction in the m tter. On the 13th of M rch, 1985, the DD wrote to the petitioner's mother in the following terms:

"Ple se refer to this office letter of even number d ted 9.8.83 wherein Shri G.B. Krishn R o w s requested to m ke the p yment of Rs. 46,069.50 p ise (Rupees Forty six thous nd sixty nine & mp; p ise fifty only) on ccount of 5th nd fin l p yment of the fl t No.120, C tegory II, Sheikh S r i within one month. The s id p yment h s not been received so f r lthough period of 11/2 ye rs h ve p ssed.

You re given the fin l opportunity to deposit the s me with interest within period of 15 d ys, f iling which the office will be forced to t ke ction for the c ncell tion of the s id fl t. In th t event, the interest nd c ncell tion ch rges etc. will be deducted from the deposits m de by l te Shri G.B. Krishn R o nd b l nce will be refunded fter meeting the cl ims of School of Pl nning nd rchitecture to the person in whose f vour the court will issue the succession certific te.

Further in order to fin lise the tr nsfer ction, you re once g in requested to submit the succession certific te nd the enclosed documents duly executed nd ttested on beh lf of the minor."

18. On the 23rd of M rch, 1985, the mother of the petitioner h d given n undert king in writing nd lso n indemnity bond, nd lso n ffid vit, s required by the DD . On the 29th of pril, 1985, the DD wrote to the mother of the petitioner in the following terms:

"With reference to your letter d ted 25.3.1985 received from your n tur l gu rdi n, I m directed to inform you th t the documents received long with this letter re not in order. These re to be executed by your n tur l gu rdi n for n on beh lf of your i.e. the minor son nd not for self. You re therefore requested to submit the correct documents duly executed nd ttested for nd on beh lf of minor son only.

You re once g in requested to m ke the p yment of the fifth nd fin l inst lment long with the interest within 15 d ys from the issue of this letter. This m y kindly be tre ted s fin l oppor tunity nd if the p yment is not received, thus the llotment will be c ncelled. In c se of c ncell tion, you will be li ble to m ke the p yment of c ncell tion ch rges, interest, etc. nd therefore the cl im of the School of Pl nning nd rchitecture will be met. The b l nce if rem ined unrecover ble, the s me will be recovered s rre rs of l nd revenue."

19. On the 23rd of July, 1985, the DD issued the following letter c ncelling the llotment :

"Reference your cl im for tr nsfer of llotment m de in f vour of Shri G.B.Krishn R o, I m to inform you th t you h ve neither filed succession certific te nor m de the p yments due on the fl t in question under the Trip rtite greement executed between DD nd dece sed llottee in the event of tr nsfer of llotment, ll sums p id by School of Pl nning & mp; rchitecture, I.P. Est te, New Delhi on beh lf of llottee become return ble. We h ve given you sufficient time to disch rge oblig tions.

In view of your in bility to meet the li bilities, llotment in f vour of Shri G.B. Krishn R o is being c ncelled nd money recovered from the School of Pl nning nd rchitecture being returned to them. Should you get succession certific te you c n cl im the b l nce mount held on beh lf of DD on dece sed c count."

20. On the 27th of July, 1985, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the DD requesting for revoc tion of the letter d ted the 23rd of July, 1985 nd lso for time for depositing the mount fter the succession certific te is gr nted. In October, 1985, notice under Section < href="j v script:fnOpenGlob lPopUp('/b /disp. sp','15063','1');">53B of the Delhi Development ct, 1957 w s issued by the counsel on beh lf of the petitioner to the DD . The s me is s under:

"Under instructions from my client M ster G. k sh son of l te Shri G.B l krishn R o cting through his mother Smt.Suj t li s Sus n George resident of Fl t No. 452, C tegory II, SFS, Sheikh S r i, New Delhi, I h ve to serve with the following notice:

1. Th t the f ther of my client Professor G. B l krishn R o h d pplied for fl t under Self Fin ncing Scheme nd m de the requisite deposit with you.

2. Th t the f ther of my client w s llotted fl t No.120, C tego ry II, Sheikh S r i Residenti l Scheme under Self Fin ncing Scheme nd h d m de the initi l deposits.

3. Th t the f ther of my client w s employed s Professor nd De n of Studies in the School of Pl nning nd rchitecture, New Delhi.

4. Th t the f ther of my client h d lso m de fixed deposit of Rs. 30,000/ for the purpose of deposit to you nd with th t view s nd when the subsequent dem nds re m de by you the mount is re dily v il ble with him.

5. Th t to the misfortune of my client his f ther died on 15th ugust, 1983 le ving behind my client s his only child.

6. Th t my client w s born on 7th M y, 1972 nd is still minor.

7. Th t my client h s pplied to you for the tr nsfer of the fl t from the n me of his f ther to his n me nd h s furnished ll the necess ry documents but no ction w s t ken.

8. Th t since the p rents of my client h d divorced s such my client h d no other person to look fter him nd he on ccount of his minority w s under dis bility nd th t dis bility still subsists.

9. Th t my client h d pplied to the employers of his f ther for h nding over to him the deposits which were lying in the lmir h of my client's f ther but they were not supplying the s me but inste d hindr nce w s being cre ted.

10. Th t my client there fter pplied for gr nt of succession certific te nd the s id m tter is pending in the Court of Shri J.P. Sh rm , SubJudge, First Cl ss, Delhi nd the next d te is fixed s 12th December, 1985.

11. Th t the Court of the SubJudge h d issued notice on 13.3.1985 for public tion in the d ily newsp per Hindust n Times but the s id newsp per did not publish the s me nd there fter the Court sent nother notice which h s been published in Hindu st n Times of 2.10.1985.

12. Th t my client on ccount of nonrele se of the fixed depos its nd on ccount of the proceedings being t ken in the Court for gr nt of succession certific te w s not in position to m ke the deposit of the dem nd m de by the DD .

13. Th t my client h s been pprising the DD from time to time of the st ge of the proceedings before the Court but still he w s surprised to received notice th t the llotment w s being c ncelled on ccount of nonp yment of the b l nce mount.

14. Th t the ct of the Delhi Development uthority is contr ry to l w nd opposed to the principles of n tur l justice. My client being minor no orders could be p ssed to his prejudice without his rights being protected.

15. Th t the DD h d itself issued n dvertisement in the Hindu st n Times of 23.8.1985 wherein it w s cle rly mentioned th t the bel ted p yments m de in respect of the price under the self fin ncing scheme sh ll be li ble to interest nd there is no question of their being c ncell tion of the llotment.

16. Th t even otherwise my client being minor no order could be p ssed g inst him without the permission of the District Judge s the minority is dis bility beyond the control of the indi vidu l.

17. Th t the ct of the DD being contr ry to l w my client is within his rights to bring in the ppropri te ction restr ining the uthority from c ncelling his llotment or in ny w y preju dicing the rights to the llotment of the fl t.

18. Th t my client is lw ys willing nd will p y the entire mount s soon s the succession certific te is gr nted nd the s me is rele sed in his f vour by the Court.

I h ve, therefore, instructions to c ll upon you through this notice th t you will ple se rr nge not to t ke ny ction in c ncelling the llotment of fl t No.120, C tegory II, Sheikh S r i, Self Fin ncing Residenti l Scheme nd in c se ny ction in th t beh lf is t ken my client will be within his rights to bring in ppropri te leg l ction g inst the uthority.

I h ve further instructions to c ll upon you through this notice th t you m y not t ke ny ction either llotting or otherwise h nd over the possession of the fl t to ny other person to the prejudice of my client. Ple se t ke notice ccordingly.

copy of this notice h s been kept in my office for record nd further necess ry ction."

21. On the 10th of October, 1985, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the DD in the following terms:

"The petitioner respectfully beg to submit s under :

(1) Th t the f ther of the petitioner Professor G. B l krishn R o h d pplied for llotment of fl t under the self fin ncing scheme nd m de the requisite deposits with the Delhi Development uthority s w s required from time to time.

(2) Th t the petitioner is minor son of the s id Professor Shri G.B. Krishn R o nd w s born on 7th M y, 1972.

(3) Th t to the misfortune of the petitioner the f ther of the petitioner died on 15th ugust, 1983 nd the petitioner w s left lone s the p rents of the petitioner h d lre dy sep r ted. It w s the kindness of the mother of the petitioner who though sep r ted from the f ther of the petitioner c me to the rescue of the petitioner.

(4) Th t the f ther of the petitioner w s employed s Professor nd De n of Studies in the School of Pl nning nd rchitecture, New Delhi.

(5) Th t since the f ther of the petitioner w s sep r ted from the mother of the petitioner he h d kept ll his ssets in his office lmir h nd t the time of his de th nd even there fter the petitioner h d no knowledge s to the items he left. The petitioner h d only the knowledge th t the f ther of the peti tioner h d kept fixed deposit receipt for the purpose of m king p yment tow rds the cost of the first be ring No.120 C tegory II, Sheikh S r i, New Delhi nd the s id fixed deposit w s in the sum of Rs. 30,000/.

(6) Th t the petitioner h d been corresponding with the employer of his f ther (The Director of School of Pl nning nd rchitec ture, Inderpr sth Est te, New Delhi) nd the s id school w s not cooper ting nd were not imp rting ny inform tion to the peti tioner s to the contents of the ssets of his f ther lying in the office nd lso the mount which w s p y ble to the f ther of the petitioner on ccount of his service with the s id School.

(7) Th t the petitioner finding it difficult to get the inform tion filed on pplic tion before the District Judge, Delhi for the gr nt of succession certific te for the est te of the de ce sed, Professor G. B l krishn R o.

(8) Th t it w s with the intervention of the dministr tive Sub Judge Shri J.P.Sh rm , in whose Court the pplic tion for gr nt of succession certific te w s pending, th t the petitioner w s furnished with the inform tion of the ssets of his f ther nd this w s done only on 9.1.1985. photost t copy of th t reply is enclosed for perus l nd is m rked s nnexure .

(9) Th t the petitioner there fter h d to mend the pplic tion for gr nt of succession certific te nd fter h ving mended the s me the Court directed th t notice m y be published in the Hindust n Times nd the notice w s sent to the Hindust n Times for public tion but the s id newsp per f iled to publish the s me in spite of the f ct th t direction h d been issued to the s id newsp per s f r b ck s on 13th M rch, 1985.

(10) Th t the petitioner in this beh lf is nnexing herewith the entire copy of the proceedings sheets of the Court from 9.4.1984 to 9.5.1985 which shows th t in spite of the f ct th t notice w s sent for public tion on 13th M rch, 1986 the s me w s not published. The Court there fter sent the notice second time which h s been published in Hindust n Times of 2nd October, 1985 nd the s id newsp per is lso nnexed hereto for inform tion.

(11) Th t the petitioner w s surprised to know th t the DD thre tened to c ncel the llotment on the ple th t he w s not m king the p yment of the fifth nd fin l inst lment long with the interest thereon. The petitioner h s been bringing to the notice of the uthorities th t the petitioner w s h ndic pped bec use the belongings of his l te f ther were not being rele sed nd the petitioner w s t king ll the me sures th t re provided for but even then the petitioner h s been informed th t the llotment h s been c ncelled.

(12) Th t the petitioner h s ll the money th t h s to be p id to the Delhi Development uthority but the impediment tt ched with the petitioner is his minority nd the del y in the Court pro ceedings which re beyond the control nd re ch of the petition er. The employers of the f ther of the petitioner who, fter his de th should h ve ssisted the petitioner but inste d st rted cre ting hindr nce by not disclosing to the petitioner the ssets of the f ther of the petitioner nd lso f iled to h nd over the FDR which w s lying with them. The s id FDR is lying with the employer of the f ther of the petitioner till d te.

(13) Th t the petitioner, s c n be seen from the proceedings of the Court, h s been git ting for the gr nt of succession certif ic te nd h s left no efforts in securing the money nd deposit ing the s me with the Delhi Development uthority.

(14) Th t the petitioner's minority is lso h ndic p nd so f r s the petitioner is given to underst nd th t during his minority his rights c nnot be jeop rdised in the m nner s the DD is trying to do. The rights of the petitioner c nnot be t ken w y in the m nner s is being done in the inst te c se.

(15) Th t friend of the petitioner h s further brought to the notice of the petitioner on dvertisement given by the DD which ppe red in the Hindust n Times of 23rd ugust, 1985 th t the bel ted p yments m de in respect of the inst lments under the Self Fin ncing Scheme c n only be subjected to p yment of interest s h s been shown in the s id dvertisement. photost t copy thereof is enclosed. This lso shows th t when there is del y in the m king p yment of the l st inst lment s in the c se of the petitioner the only li bility th t c n be inflicted upon the petitioner is the li bility to p y interest for the del yed p yment but not to t ke w y the right of the petitioners.

16) Th t the petitioner feels nd fe rs th t his rights re being t ken w y in n rbitr ry nd illleg l m nner. The petitioner is bringing ll these f cts to the notice of your honour to consider the c se of the petitioner in view of the peculi r circumst nces to which the petitioner h s been subjected to on ccount of the de th of his f ther. But for the de th of his f ther the mount kept by the petitioner's f ther in Fixed Depos it would h ve been p id to the Delhi Development uthority. The petitioner h s no control over the Court procedure nor the peti tioner c n h sten it up.

(17) Th t the petitioner with ll the dis bilities tt ched h s been diligently nd honestly m king ll efforts for the gr nt of succession certific te with view to m king the p yment but his efforts h ve gone futile.

It is, therefore, pr yed th t your honour m y kindly look into the m tter nd direct th t the llotment of the f ct m y not be c ncelled nd in c se ny c ncell tion order h s been p ssed the s me m y be withdr wn in view of the peculi r circumst nces expl ined bove.

The petitioner, in view of the dvertisement in Hindust n Times of 23.6.1985, would further pr y th t he m y be given time to m ke the deposit with the DD .

photost t copy of the birth certific te of the petitioner is enclosed."

22. On the 30th of September, 1988, the Office of the ssist nt Controller (Est te Duty), New Delhi issued the certific te nd the s me re ds s under:

ESTATE DUTY

1. Name of the deceased : G. Balakrishna Rao

2. Date of death : 15.3.1983

3. GIR No. : R-86/88-89

4. Whether the deceased :

possessed any property in his individual capacity?

5.   Whether the deceased     :
     was a member of HUF 
     governed by Mitakashra 
     Marumakkattayam 
     or Allyasgntane Law?
6.   Name of the A.P.         :    Mrs. Sujata(Alias) Susan,
                                   452 SFS DDA,
                                   Sheikh Sarai-I, Delhi.
7.   Section and Sub-         :    58(1)
     Section under which
     assessment is made.

                       ASSESSMENT ORDER

 

     Return  filed  on 4.8.88 declaring net P.V. at  Rs.1,43,277/-  is 
     accepted u/s 58(1) of the Estate Duty Act. 
 Net P.V. at        :                           Rs.1,43,277/-
Estate Duty on     :                             Nil
Rs.1,43,277/-

 

     Assessed. Issue necessary forms. 
                                         (J.C. MALHOTRA)
DATED:- 30.9.1988                  ADDL. AC.ED., NEW DELHI
                GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ESTATE DUTY
                            NEW DLEHI
               OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. CONTROLLER OF
                  ESTATE DUTY CIRCLE, NEW DLEHI
                                   DATED 11TH NOV., 1988

 


Discharge certificate where no duty is payable (See Rule 26(i)
 In the Estate of                        Late Sh. G. Bala
                                   Krishan Rao
Official Reference                      Ex-R-86/88-89

 

It is hereby certified that there is no claim for Estate Duty under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 in respect of the property herein after described as passing on the death of late Shri G. Bala Kishan Rao of Delhi who died on 15.8.1983.

These property herein before referred to:-

 1.   Fixed Deposit in         Rs. 30,000
Syndicate Bank
2.   Balance in               Rs. 5,000
     Syndicate Bank
3.   Super-annuation Fund     Rs.55,720
     (P.F.)
4.   CDS.                     Rs. 222
5.   Loan Salary              Rs. 2,913
6.   Salary Due               Rs. 2,032
7.   Insurance                Rs. 80,000
8.   Deposit with DDA         Rs. 68,400
9.   Gratuity                 Rs. 18,125

 

     23.  The  Estate  Duty had clearly mentioned that  there  was  noliability to pay any amount. 
 

24. On the 30th of January, 1990, the learned Sub-Judge (Ist Class), Delhi issued the succession certificate. The succession certificate reads as under:-

IN THE COURT OF MRS. KAMLESH SHABHARWAL, SUB JUDGE, IST CLASS, DELHI.

In Case No. 237 of 1984

Master G.Akash son of late Shri G. Balakrishna Rao, acting through his natural mother Mrs.Sujata, Resident of Qr. No. 452, SFS, DDA Flats, Sheikh Sarai, Phase I, New Delhi.

IN THE GOODS OF LATE SHRI D. BALAKRISHNA RAO DECEASED:

Whereas you applied on 9th day of April, 1984 for a certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of the following debts and securities, namely:-

Fixed Deposits with Syndicate Bank, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.

 S.   FDR No.        Amount    Interest  Total amount
No.                 (Rs.)                    Due
      
(a)  081413/10213   7,087.20  212.60    7,299.85
(b)  081416/10216   1,665.00  215.00    1,820.00
(c)  081417/10217   843.60    112.00    955.60
(d)  081418/10218   1,681.62  220.00    1,901.62
(e)  081419/10219   12,549.93 1,500.00  14,049.93
(f)  081425/10225   1,661.00  217.00    1,878.00
(g)  081426/10226   1,661.00  217.00    1,878.00
(h)  076827/434     10,000.00           :
     (Share as cash                     :
     certificate)                       :
                                        :
(i)  076828/434     10,000.00: 8,710.00 28,710.00
   (Share as cash  :
   certificate)    :
                                        ----------
                                        58,553.00
(B)  Saving Bank    4,500.00  500.00    5,000.00
     A/c No.1731 with
     Syndicate Bank,
     I.P. Estate,
     New Delhi.
                                        ---------
                                        63,553.00
2.   Amounts lying with School
     of Planning and
     Architecture, I.P. Estate,
     New Delhi, Respondent No.2.
(a)  Provident Fund           55,720.00
(b)  Compulsory Deposit       1,156.00
(c)  Gratuity                 18,125.00
(d)  Salary from 1.8.83 to    2,032.85
     15.8.1983
(e)  Leave Salary             2,913.35
LIABILITIES:-
Amounts payable to School
of Planning and
Architecture, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi, Respondent No.2.
(a)  Balance of outstanding   42,320.00      :
     House Building Advance                  :
                                             :
(b)  Interest on the House    10,250.00      :    54,200.99
     Building Advance upto                   :
     30.9.1984                               :
                                             :
(c)  Library books out-       1,765.80       :
     standing against                        :
     the deceased                            :

 

This succession certificate is accordingly granted to you and empowers you to receive the above said debts and securities with interest thereon. However, the share of the minor petitioner shall be deposited in fixed deposit scheme by the guardian Smt. Sujata @ Sussan George in fixed deposit scheme and the minor can withdraw the same only after attaining the age of majority.

Sd/ Delhi dated 30th (KAMLESH SABHARWAL) day of Jan. 1990 SUB JUDGE,IST CLASS, DELHI

25. On the 20th of April, 1990, the mother of the petitioner paid the sum of Rs. 46,069.50 to the DDA. On the 23rd of April, 1990, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the DDA and the same is as under :

"Kindly refer to your letter No. F.10(149)/1525/80/SFS II dated the 9th August, 1983 and my applications dated 20.2.1984 and 25.3.1985 and your office letters dated 29.4.85 and 23.7.85 on the above subject.

2. That your letter dated 9th August, 1983 issued in the name of Shri G.B. Krishna Rao was delivered after the death of Shri G.B. Krishna Rao who had died on 15.8.1983.

3. That a photostat copy of the death certificate relating to the death of Shri G.B. Krishna Rao, the allottee is again enclosed.

4. That the applicant was born on 7.5.1972. A photostat copy of the birth certificate is also enclosed to that effect.

5. That at the time of the death of Shri G.B. Krishna Rao, the applicant was a minor and the applicant still continues to be a minor as is clear from the birth certificate annexed hereto.

6. That in your letter dated 23.7.1985 it was mentioned that I have not produced or filed the succession certificate nor made the payments due on the flat.

7. That in this behalf it may be submitted that an application for grant of succession certificate was made to the Administra tive SubJudge as far back as on 16.3.1984 and the same was registered by the Sub Judge, First Class on 9.4.1984.

8. That the Succession certificate case was registered as 237 of 1984 and the Succession Certificate was issued on 30.1.1990. A photostat copy of the Succession Certificate is also enclosed.

9. That the assets of the deceased Shri G.B. Krishna Rao were locked up in the bank deposits and also the amounts payable by the employers of the deceased (School of Planning and Architec ture, New Delhi) and none of the amounts could be made available to the Applicant right till the 20th April, 1990. The applicant in this behalf is enclosing the certificates of the bankers that the amount was released only on 20.4.1990 after the issuance of the Succession Certificate dated 30.1.1990.

10. That the applicant had taken no time in making the deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 46,069.50 paise as have been claimed in your letter No. F.10(149)/1425/80/SFS II dated 9.8.1983, a photo stat copy whereof is also enclsoed.

11. That the applicant is enclosing the triplicate challan copy bearing No. 28700 dated 20.4.1990 showing that the amount as indicated in your letter dated 9.8.1983 has been deposited.

12. That it will not be out of place to point out that the appli cant on account of his minority was not in a position to arrange any funds except the funds which were available and due to his father at the time of his death and those funds were only re leased after the grant of the Succession certificate.

13. That the Succession Certificate having been granted on 30.1.1990 and the applicant being still a minor, no order adverse to the applicant can be passed during his minority.

14. That the applicant had taken all the measures that were available under the law and have applied well in time for the grant of the Succession Certificate and the moment the Succession certificate was granted, applied to the banks concerned where the amounts were lying in deposit for the release of the amounts and also to the employers of the father of the applicant (School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi) for release of the amounts lying to his credit and immediately when the amount was released on 20.4.1990, the same was paid to the Delhi Development Authori ty towards the balance of the cost as is evident from the copy of the challan annexed hereto.

15. That the applicant having paid whole of the cost is entitled to the delivery of the possession of the flat immediately.

16. That the applicant has no objection to pay any other amount that may be due to the Delhi Development Authority towards the cost of the flat allotted or otherwise in connection therewith and the same shall be deposited as soon as the same is indicated.

17. That the applicant has been placed in a very precarious condition on account of the death of his father and the applicant has done all that was available at his command and had also applied to the Delhi Development Authority well in time for being substituted.

18. That the issuance of the Succession Certificate and the release of the amount at the credit of the deceased Shri G.B.Krishna Rao were beyond the power and control of the appli cant and the Courts had taken their own time in issuing the Certificate of Succession.

It is, therefore, prayed that your honour be kind enough to direct that the possession of the flat may be delivered to the applicant at the earliest. The applicant undertakes to file such documents as may become necessary to be executed by the applicant in connection with the transfer of the allotment in his name."

26. On the 30th of May, 1990, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. The letter reads as under:

"With reference to your letter dated 23.4.90 on the subject noted above, I am directed to inform you that flat in question has been cancelled as informed vide this office letter of even No. dated 23.7.85 the sum of of Rs.53,000/ was refunded to the Dy.Regis trar, School of Planning and Architect, New Delhi after giving you sufficient time to discharge obligations.

Hence, your request at this stage cannot be entertained."

27. On the 23rd of August, 1990, the mother of the petitioner again wrote to the DDA to reconsider the matter. She again wrote on the 20th of November, 1990 to the DDA. On the 1st of January, 1991, the following letter was sent:

"Kindly refer to your letter No. F.10(149) 80/SFS dated 30th May, 1990. I am surprised to know that you had cancelled the allotment of the aforesaid flat and have refunded a sum of Rs.53,000/ to the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi.

2. That it is an admitted fact on the record of your office that late Shri G.B.Krishna Rao died on 15th August, 1983 and the applicant was born on 7th May, 1972. The applicant was minor at the time of the death of his father, late Shri G.B.Krishna Rao.

3. That the fact that the money belonging to my father late Shri G.B.Krishna Rao was lying in deposit and for the realisation of the said money, a succession certificate was absolutely neces sary.

4. That an application for grant of the succession certificate was filed before the Administrative SubJudge as far back as on 16th March, 1984 and the same was registered on 9th April, 1984 and the amount in pursuance thereof was released partly on 20th April, 1990 and immediately thereafter the balance amount as demanded in your letter dated 9th August, 1983 was deposited.

5. That it is a surprising fact that it being on the record that I was a minor and as such no order adverse to me could have been passed. The grant of succession certificate is a matter before the authorities of the State and appropriate measures had been taken well in time for the grant of the succession certificate. The time spent in obtaining the succession certificate in no way can be taken against the applicant.

6. That the applicant being a minor, no order adverse to him could have been passed nor his rights could be taken away arbitrarily and that too by a state. In fact it is the State who has to take care of the destitute but in the instant case it is happening other way round.

7. That the Delhi Development Authority from time and again had been issuing press notes that in the event of the delayed pay ments interest could be charged. At worst I can be made liable to pay interest but my rights to the allotment could not be taken away.

8. That till date I have not been informed as to on which date an order for cancellation of the allotment had been made nor I have been served with any copy of the order.

9. That the letter dated 23rd July, 1985 in no way tantamounts to cancellation of the allotment and that too during the minority of the applicant.

10. That the applicant is further surprised to notice that out of the amount deposited by late Shri G.B. Krishna Rao, a sum of Rs. 53,000/ has been paid to the School of Planning and Architec ture. This is a peculiar thing that has happened in this case. The amount was deposited by the deceased Shri G.B. Krishna Rao and it is not understood as under what provisions and under what circumstances a sum of Rs.53,000/ has been paid to the School of Planning and Architecture and that too without notice to the applicant.

11. That the applicant alone being the heir of the deceased and suffering with the disability of minority, no order adverse to his interest could have been passed in the manner as is being contended.

12. It is, therefore, submitted that if any order has been passed not keeping in view the minority of the applicant, the same may kindly be revoked and the whole of the amount already stands credited. It is also requested to please supply me a certified copy of the order purporting to have been passed cancelling the allotment with its date. It is also requested that the circum stances under which a sum of Rs.53,000/ has been paid to the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi and the date on which the said amount was paid to said School may also be commu nicated.

13. That there appears to be some mistake in the office in not keeping in view the minority of the applicant and the orders have been passed in a manner warranted by law.

14. It is, therefore, prayed that the allotment may be restored and the possession handed over to the applicant as the whole of the amount has already been deposited."

28. The petitioner had referred to the return of the sum of Rs. 52,000/ by the employer of the father of the petitioner. On the 4th of February, 1991, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.53,000/ with the DDA. On the same date, the petitioner's mother wrote to the DDA about the payment of Rs. 53,000/.

29. On the 12th of January, 1991, the petitioner had executed a power of attorney in favour of his mother.

30. The petitioner attained majority on the 6th of May, 1990 as he was born on the 7th of May, 1972. This writ petition was presented on the 5th of May, 1991. On the 6th of May, 1991, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:

CW. 1493/91

Notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, return able on 22nd August, 1991.

CM. 2387/91

Notice for 22nd August, 1991. Meanwhile, there will be stay of the operation of the order communicated to the petitioner by the respondent by its letter dated 30.5.1990 (Annexure P64 to the writ petition) till the next date. Flat No.120, Category II, SFS, Sheikh Sarai, Phase I, shall not be allotted to any other person and status quo shall strictly be maintained. Dasti."

31. In the counteraffidavit, the DDA had mentioned that in 1989 the same flat had been allotted to the third respondent, and therefore, the third respondent is a necessary party. Subsequently, the third respondent was imp leaded. The petitioner filed the application to implead the third respondent as a party and that is why the third respondent has come into the picture.

32. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that what was done during the minority of the petitioner would not be binding on the petitioner and the allotment alleged to have been made to the third respondent in 1989 cannot be projected against the petitioner because whatever that was done by the DDA during the minority of the petitioner would be violative at his instance, and within the three years after the petitioner attaining majority, he had instituted this writ petition and after attaining majority the petitioner had deposited the amount and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for, which had been mentioned earlier.

33. The learned counsel for the DDA, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner after the death of the father of the petitioner to pay the money due. When the request was not complied with, the DDA had cancelled the allotment and DDA had exercised its powers as per the terms of the tripartite agreement which is binding on the petitioner. The DDA later on, after following the procedure prescribed, made the allotment to the third respondent.

34. The third respondent took the same stand that was taken by the first respondent and sought to sustain the allotment. Under the general principles of contract if one of the parties to transaction dies, the right under the contract could be exercised by the successor. If that successor is a minor on the death of the party, the right under the contract could be enforced after the minor attains majority. The same principle is recognised and it has been given statutory effect under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the instant case, the petitioner, through his mother, had applied for succession certificate on the 9th of April, 1984 and that was granted on the 30th of January, 1990 and immediately thereafter realising the money due to the estate of the deceased, the petitioner had made the payment to the DDA. The petitioner does not have his case on the payment made by him after attaining majority but what he would state is that because of his disability (being a minor) he could not do anything and the delay in obtaining the estate duty clearance certificate and the succession certificate was beyond his control and the moment things were cleared, the petitioner had done what was required to be done. What is submitted on behalf of the petitioner has considerable force. Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under:

Legal disability _ (1) Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insance, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time speci fied therefor in the third column of the Schedule.

(2) Where such person is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, affected by two such disabilities, or where, before his disability has ceased, he is affected by anoth er disability, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after both disabilities have ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified.

(3) Where the disability continues up to the death of that per son, his legal representative may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the death, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified.

(4) Where the legal representative referred to in subsection (3) is, at the date of the death of the person whom he represents, affected by any such disability, the rules contained in sub sections (1) and (2) shall apply.

(5) Where a person under disability dies after the disability ceases but within the period allowed to him under this section, his legal representative may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the death, as would otherwise have been available to that person had he not died."

35. The DDA had allotted the flat to the third respondent, B.N. Thapar. The DDA had failed to produce the file before Court relating to the allotment made to the third respondent and how the matter was dealt with by the DDA. Whatever be the position in 1989 when the allotment was made by the DDA to the third respondent, the petitioner was still a minor and his rights were intact. After attaining majority, the petitioner prayed for the cancellation of the order passed in 1985 and he offered to pay the money due. The DDA had not considered the same on the ground that allotment had already been made to the third respondent. In the counteraffidavit, as we have noticed earlier, the stand taken is that the order of cancellation of allotment issued in 1985 is in accordance with law. The third respondent had purchased the flat believing representations made by the DDA. Therefore, his allotment cannot be disturbed.

36. Accordingly, the order passed by the DDA on the 27th of March, 1985 is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to the flat in question. As the flat in question had already been allotted to the third respondent in the year 1989, we are of the view that the allotment in favour of the third respondent should not be disturbed. A similar situation arose before a Division Bench of this Court in "Dr.(Mrs.) Rita Rustogi Vs. DDA & Another", . The Division Bench solved the situation by stating:

"At this stage, it has been brought to our notice that the said flat has already been allotted to another person and possession handed over. In order that an unwary purchaser may not be dislocated, we had asked the respondents to indicate if any other ground floor flat can be made available to the petitioner in the same vicinity. After considerable difficulty, we have today been informed that some of the flats in Vasant Kunj on the ground floor are available. One of the flats which has been offered to the petitioner is flat No.1398, Ground Floor, Sector C, Pocket I, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. This flat is acceptable to the petition er. We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give to the petitioner formal letter of allotment of flat No.1398, Ground Floor, Pocket I, Sector C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi within one week from today and we further issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give vacant physical pos session of the said flat to the petitioner within a fortnight thereafter."

37. We are of the view that a direction deserves to be issued to the DDA to allot a flat to the petitioner of similar area to the flat that was allotted to his father in any similar colony in Delhi without demanding any extra money.

38. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. The DDA is directed to allot and put the petitioner in possession of a flat in Delhi in similar locality and similar in area to the flat that was allotted to his father without charging any extra amount within six months from today.

39. There shall be no order as to costs.