Delhi High Court
Shri Kishan Lal vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 10 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 (60) DRJ 650
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sarin. J (Oral)
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to hand over possession of flat No.22-C, IInd Floor, Phase-II, Jhil Mil Area, Delhi or alternatively hand over possession of a similar flat in Jhil Mil Area. if possession of the above flat cannot be handed over.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.C. Dua submits that petitioner was entitled to flat No. 22-C, Phase II, Shivam Enclave, Jhil Mil Colony, Delhi. However, the respondent/DDA has allotted flat No.22-C, IInd Floor, Phase-II, Jhil Mil Colony.
The crux of the problem appears to be that in the Jhil Mil Colony there is a block having a cluster of flats, which has come to be popularly known as "Shivam Enclave". It appears that the cluster of flats in the block known as "Shivam Enclave" are preferred and coveted flats, as compared to rest of the Jhil Mil Colony. Petitioner naturally seeks an allotment of a flat at "Shivam Enclave". There is no dispute with regard to their being an allotment in favor of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.V.K. Sharma, urged that respondent/DDA is willing to give possession of the flat that has ben allotted to the petitioner. However, petitioner has not been willing to take the same and instead insisting on the allotment of flat No.22-C, Phase II, Shivam Enclave, Jhil Mil Colony, Delhi i.e. in the cluster of flats at Shivam Enclave. Mr. Sharma clarified that the cluster of flats in Shivam Enclave is referred to and identified as "Phase II, Pocket C group flats". The allotment in favor of the petitioner was not in pocket C Group Flats. To satisfy myself as to the correctness of the stand of respondent, records of DDA were called for. The Joint Director, DDA is present in Court with the records. The lay out plan has also been produced before me, in which the flats known as "Shivam Enclave" are also shown. Here among the other descriptions, the word "Pocket C", though written quite dimly, appears. In any case, learned counsel for the respondent has also produced and shown in Court that one Mr. Sushil Duggal, had filed a CWP.No.2854/93. Mr. Duggal, it is stated, had been allotted flat No.22-C, Phase II, in the cluster of flats, known as Shivam Enclave, the allotment of which the petitioner is now seeking. The allotment letter issued in the case of Mr. Duggal has been perused. The said allotment letter also carries "Pocket C". The respondent's stand that flats in "Shivam Enclave" block were described and identified as "Pocket C" is borne out as correct by the lay out plan and the allotment letter in favor of M. Duggal. The allotment letter of petitioner does not mention "Pocket C".
In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the apprehension of the petitioner that he is being wrongly denied a flat in the cluster, known as "Shivam Enclave", is mis-founded.
The writ petition is, accordingly dismissed.
