Tulsi Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 2420 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 13th February, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant submitted his application for allotment of a flat along with Rs. 1500/- as registration charge, under a scheme floated by respondent No. 3 ' Delhi Development Authority. He had stated in his writ petition that pursuant to his application, he was given a registration number being registration No. 11911. It is also alleged that pursuant to the aforesaid registration a flat bearing number 205-B, Pocket F, Dilshad Garden was also allotted in favor of the appellant on 15th March, 1984. It is stated by the Delhi Development Authority that an amount of Rs. 53,333/- vide challan No. 99072 dated 29.1.1985 was deposited and thereafter the possession letter dated 10.2.1985 was issued. It is further stated by the Delhi Development Authority that possession of the aforesaid flat was taken by some person impersonating as Tulsi Ram. However, subsequently the Delhi Development Authority had cancelled the aforesaid allotment in favor of the appellant and reclaimed possession of the aforesaid flat. It is also stated by Delhi Development Authority that as the flat was vacant, after obtaining the due approval from the Vice Chairman, the flat in question was included in the list and through draw of lots dated 26th December, 2003 allotted to one Mr. Mohammad Hanif.

2. While hearing arguments of the counsel for the parties on this appeal, which was filed after dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant, we have perused the pleadings of the parties as also the records placed before us. The appellant has all along been taking a stand that on the application filed by him for allotment of a flat, he was given a registration number which was registration No. 11911. The records, however, indicate that the said registration was in the name of one Shri Subhash Chander Mishra. Records do indicate that one Tulsi Ram was registered vide registration number 10903, but the fact whether or not the said registration was in favor of the appellant cannot be verified in view of the fact that entire records relating to the said registration number 10903 are missing. The appellant also failed to produce the original receipt, or even photocopy and other documents in support of his claim and, therefore, it was not possible to reconstruct the records and also accept the claim of the appellant.

3. It is indeed true that the aforesaid flat No. 205-B, Pocket-F, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi was allotted to one Tulsi Ram on 15th March, 1984 but the same was reclaimed by the Delhi Development Authority on coming to know that somebody has falsely represented himself to be Tulsi Ram.

4. The appellant was relying on a letter of the Delhi Development Authority dated 15th June, 2004, which was addressed to one Tulsi Ram and written by Delhi Development Authority. In the subject of the said letter it is stated that the same is a communication regarding allotment of LIG flat against registration No. 11911. On the basis of the said letter it is stated that even the Delhi Development Authority has accepted the genuineness of the registration of the appellant for allotment of a flat. We are, however, unable to accept the aforesaid contention for the simple reason that the said letter nowhere states that the appellant is the same Tulsi Ram, who applied and got his registration number 11911 whereas in fact the said Tulsi Ram was registered under registration number 10903. Reference can also be made to a letter of the appellant himself, which appears to have been written some time in 2004 In the said letter he has stated that only some time in 2004 he has come to know from a property dealer that a flat has been allotted to him in Dilshad Garden. He has admitted in the said letter that he tried to trace out the receipt but did not find the same. He has alleged that the said letter allotting the aforesaid flat was sent at a wrong address and that when the DDA came to know of the same, the same was got vacated by the Delhi Development Authority.

5. The aforesaid application would indicate that the claim made by the appellant is very vague and the same is not supported by any documentary evidence. Even the receipt showing payment of money could not be produced by the appellant nor any other document in support of the aforesaid claim. The payment was made as far back as in 1985. Claim is being made for allotment of the said flat in terms of the aforesaid letter, which appears to be a letter written on 15th June, 2004 The registration number 11911 is also apparently wrong because the registration number 11911, which the appellant claims, is that of one Shri Subhash Chander Mishra. The flat was allotted in the name of Tulsi Ram in the year 1984. If the appellant is actually the same Tulsi Ram, he would have himself claimed possession and would not have come up before the Court after expiry of about 20 years from the said date.

6. We uphold the findings of the learned Single Judge that the claim of the appellant appears to be very doubtful and in absence of any records no such claim could be entertained at this distant date. The writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

7. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.