Jag Ram Singh vs D.D.A.
2008 Latest Caselaw 991 Del

*             HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+                  Date of decision:     10.07.2008

%                          W.P.(C) 3947/2007


       JAG RAM SINGH                        ..... Petitioner
                           Through:    Mr. Sumit Bansal & Mr. Manish
                                       Paliwal, Advocates

                     versus

       D.D.A.                   ..... Respondent
                           Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                               Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported                          Yes
   in the Digest?


VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. One Sh. Mahadev Prasad, father of the petitioner,

registered himself with the respondent-DDA for allotment of one MIG

Flat, under the Ambedkar Awas Yojna Scheme in the year 1989. Sh.

Mahadev Prasad passed away on 06.07.2000. On 31.12.2001 the

respondent held a draw of lots wherein flat bearing No.8, First Floor,

Pocket-A, Phase-II, Dwarka, was allotted in the name of Sh. Mahavir

Prasad, under the aforesaid scheme. On receipt of this demand-cum-

allotment letter, the widow of late Sh. Mahadev Prasad Smt. Mishri

Devi vide communication sent on 27.03.2002 informed the respondent

about the demise of Sh. Mahadev Prasad. She also sought cancellation

of the allotment of the flat, and allotment of another flat after some

time in the next draw. Inter alia, vide communication dated

05.02.2004, the respondent required Smt. Mishri Devi to submit certain

documents for carrying out mutation of the registration in her favour.

Smt. Mishri Devi sent the requisite documents on 09.12.2004. On

20.01.2005, the respondent issued another communication addressed

to Smt. Mishri Devi communicating the cancellation of the allotment of

the flat on the ground that she had failed to comply with the terms and

conditions of the allotment letter dated 31.12.2001. She was also

requested to apply for refund of the amount deposited for registration

under the scheme by submitting the original FDR duly discharged on

the back sent on 27.03.2002, original registration certificate and the

original fourth copy of challan. By a further communication dated

18.02.2005 the respondent communicated the mutation/substitution of

Smt. Mishri Devi in place of her late husband "only for refund of

registration money".

2. Late Smt. Mishri Devi thereafter, continued to represent for

restoration of the same flat. This representation was rejected by the

DDA on 15.09.2005 and she was required to apply for refund of the

registration amount.

3. Smt. Mishri Devi also passed away on 17.11.2005

whereafter the petitioner, her son, applied for mutation/substitution.

Vide communication dated 07.08.2006, the respondent has carried out

mutation in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid

registration earlier held by his father Sh. Mahadev Prasad and

thereafter by his mother late Smt. Mishri Devi. Learned counsel for the

respondent submits that this mutation was carried out only for the

purpose of refund of registration amount, and not for allotment of flat.

Since the petitioner is denied allotment of a flat, the present petition

has been filed, firstly, seeking the quashing of the letter dated

20.01.2005 whereby the allotment of flat No.88, First Floor, Pocket-A,

Dwarka, has been cancelled, and further seeking the direction to the

respondent to allot a flat to the petitioner in the same zone and locality

at the cost prevailing in the year 2002.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

late Smt. Mishri Devi had communicated the demise of the original

registrant late Sh. Mahadev Prasad soon after the issuance of demand-

cum-allotment letter dated 26.12.2001-31.12.2001, on 27.03.2002.

The respondent issued two communications dated 07.05.2002 and

05.02.2004, requiring late Smt. Mishri Devi to submit documents for

carrying out mutation in her favour. Late Smt. Mishri Devi even

complied with that requirement on 19.12.2004. After having received

the said documents, the respondent issued the communication dated

20.01.2005 not only cancelling the allotment in respect of flat No.88,

as aforesaid, but also cancelling the registration under the scheme.

Though this is not so specifically stated in the communication dated

20.01.2005, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the

only inference that can be drawn from the said letter of the

respondent, as the respondent required her to apply for refund of the

amount deposited at the time of registration under the said scheme. It

is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the

request made by late Smt. Mishri Devi the respondent could have, at

best, cancelled the allotment of the allotted flat but could not have

proceeded to cancel the registration under the scheme itself. It is

further argued that the communication dated 18.02.2005 issued by the

respondent stating that the mutation in favour of late Smt. Mishri Devi

was carried out only for the purpose of refund of registration amount

was also illegal for the same reason.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that on account of the fact that late Smt. Mishri Devi did not

submit the documents required of her to carry out mutation of the

registration in her favour for nearly two years, she was no longer

entitled to continue with the registration under the scheme itself and

consequently the communication dated 20.01.2005 as issued, not only

cancelling allotment of the aforesaid flat bearing No.88, but also the

registration under the scheme.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the

view that the respondent was not justified in cancelling the registration

of the petitioner under the scheme merely on account of there being

some delay in the submission of the documents by late Smt. Mishri

Devi for carrying out mutation of the registration in her name.

Pertinently, the respondent itself had issued a reminder on 05.02.2004,

requiring Smt. Mishri Devi to submit the documents for the purpose of

carrying out mutation in her favour and the said documents were

submitted on 19.12.2004. It was only thereafter that the cancellation

of allotment and the registration appears to have taken place which

was communicated on 20.01.2005. Learned counsel for the

respondent has not been able to place before me any rule or

regulation, or term of the scheme which required late Smt. Mishri Devi

to submit the documents for mutation within a certain time, failing

which the registration under the scheme could have been cancelled.

Even the communication dated 05.02.2004 did not put late Smt. Mishri

Devi to notice that she should submit the documents within a specified

time, failing which her registration under the scheme itself would be

cancelled. By not submitting the documents earlier Smt. Mishri Devi

suffered the consequence of not being included in a draw of lots for

two years. In these circumstances, having received the relevant

documents for carrying out mutation in her favour from late Smt.

Mishri Devi on 19.12.2004, it was not open to the respondent to have

cancelled her registration under the scheme on 20.01.2005.

7. The prayer made by the petitioner for allotment of the said

flat or another flat on the rates prevalent in the year 2002, however,

does not appear to be justified. Late Smt. Mishri Devi herself sought to

surrender the said flat bearing No.88 on 27.03.2002. No payment was

made by her in furtherance of the allotment made on 26.12.2001-

31.12.2001 of flat No.88. In view of the aforesaid, I allow this petition

to the extent that I direct the respondent to retain the registration

under the said scheme earlier made in favour of Sh. Mahadev Prasad

and to allot to the petitioner a flat by including his name in the next

draw of lots. The petitioner would, however, be liable to pay the cost

for the flat as per the prevalent rules, as per the respondent's policy in

death cases.

Dasti.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

JULY 10, 2008 RSK