Kamla Devi vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 4063 Del

33.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      W.P.(C) 23517/2005

                                   Date of decision: 8th October, 2009


       KAMLA DEVI                                          ..... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. Manish Paliwal & Mr. Ateev Mathur,
                          Advocates.

                    versus

       D.D.A.                                          ..... Respondent
                          Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for
                          DDA.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

      1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
        allowed to see the judgment?
        2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
        3. Whether the judgment should be reported
        in the Digest ?

                                ORDER

1. The petitioner's husband Mr. Charan Singh had deposited

Rs.4,500/- and was registered under the AAY Scheme and was given

registration No. 10652.

2. Mr. Charan Singh expired on 29th September, 2003. After the death

of her husband, the petitioner on 17.12.2004, applied for transfer of

registration and vide letter dated 7th March, 2005, she was informed that

the registration/allotment stands transferred in her favour, she being a W.P. (C) No. 23517/2005 Page 1 legal heir of Mr. Charan Singh.

2. On 15.10.2004, i.e. before the application for transfer of mutation

was filed, draw of lots was held and a flat was allotted in favour of Mr.

Charan Singh. Before the date of mutation in the draw of lots held on

15th October, 2004, Mr. Charan Singh was allotted a flat and a demand-

cum-allotment letter with the block date ending 29th April, 2005 was

issued to him. On the basis of the said demand-cum-allotment letter, the

petitioner deposited some payments. The petitioner thereafter wrote

letters to the DDA seeking possession and thereafter filed the present

writ petition.

3. The respondents in the counter affidavit have stated that Mr.

Charan Singh had applied for cancellation of registration and Rs.4,500/-

along with interest, was refunded to him against bill No. 408 dated 30th

March, 1995 along with the refund cheque of Rs.9,862/-. It is stated by

the respondent-DDA that the name of Mr. Charan Singh was wrongly

included in the draw of lots as necessary entries for cancellation of

registration were not made in the relevant registers. It is stated by the

respondent-DDA that the said cheque was duly encashed by late Mr.

Charan Singh as per the reconciliation register maintained by the

respondent-DDA. Entries in the reconciliation register are made when a

cheque is not encashed, because it is not presented for encashment, if it

is returned, etc.

W.P. (C) No. 23517/2005 Page 2

4. Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, admits

that the original registration receipt is not available with the petitioner.

Original receipt has to be filed with the DDA for payment. The

respondent-DDA has filed today in the Court a photocopy of the

book/register for the refund payments, which have been made. At serial

No. 1590 name of Mr. Charan Singh with file No. (10652)95 appears.

The details of the bank challan by which payment was made is also

mentioned in the said register along with the amount paid. The file

number tallies with the registration number mentioned by the petitioner

in the writ petition and the demand letter. Thus there is evidence that

payment/refund cheque was issued to Mr.Charan Singh. It may be also

noticed that the draw of lots in the present case was held on 15th

October, 2004 and the petitioner had applied for transfer of

mutation/registration in her favour subsequently on 17th December, 2004,

while her husband had expired on 29th September, 2003. Thus the

petitioner had applied for transfer in her name only after draw of lots was

held.

5. In view of the aforesaid documents on record and the facts stated

above, I do not think the petitioner is entitled to any relief. The

registration in favour of the petitioner's husband was cancelled way back

in 1995 and the name of the petitioner's husband was wrongly included

in the draw of lots. A mistake by DDA cannot confer any legal right on

W.P. (C) No. 23517/2005 Page 3 the petitioner.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

6. The amount deposited by the petitioner will be refunded within a

period of ten days from the date, copy of this order is received by

sending a cheque in the name of the petitioner by registered post. The

petitioner will supply details of her bank account within seven days from

today to the DDA.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      OCTOBER 08, 2009
      VKR/P




W.P. (C) No. 23517/2005                                            Page 4