Smt.Bimla Sehgal vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 3580 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      Writ Petition (Civil) No.11432/2009

%                         Date of Decision: 04.09.2009

Smt.Bimla Sehgal                                             .... Petitioner
                         Through Mr.R.S.Rana, Advocate

                                   Versus

Delhi Development Authority                       .... Respondent
                    Through Ms.Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be               YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has impugned the decision dated 16th June, 2009

of the respondent cancelling the allotment of flat No.363, Pocket A-01,

Sector-29 in Rohini Residential Scheme allotted in the name of

Smt.Bimla Sehgal, petitioner on account of allotment of flat no.B-148,

Brotherhood Apartment, H Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, earlier in the

name of the petitioner.

The petitioner has admitted that she acquired flat No.B-148,

Brotherhood Coop. Group Housing Society Limited vide membership

No.23 dated 15th November, 1985 which flat was later on sold by her to

Shri Atul Kumar vide general power of attorney and agreement to sell

dated 29th January, 1996.

According to the petitioner, the petitioner was allotted flat No.363,

Pocket-A1, Sector 29, Rohini, Phase IV, Delhi by allotment letter dated

2nd/6th August, 2004.

According to the petitioner, the respondent had issued a letter

dated 13th April, 2007 regarding concealment of allotment of flat No.B-

148, Brotherhood Apartment. The petitioner's assertion is that he had

given a reply dated 4th June, 2007 contending that at the time of

registration of plot neither the petitioner nor her husband or children

had owned in full or part on lease or freehold basis or on hire-purchase

basis any flat in Delhi and even at the time of allotment of flat on 26th

July, 2004 neither the petitioner nor any of her family members had

any property on lease or freehold.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 2008 (106) DRJ

361, Jitender Pal Bhardwaj v. Delhi Development Authority. Perusal of

the precedent relied on by the petitioner, it is apparent that the same is

not applicable as in that case the area of the flat which was allotted was

below the limit laid down by the respondent/DDA in the eligibility

condition, i.e., less than 65 square meters and, therefore, on non-

disclosure of such a flat, the allotment of the flat later on could not be

cancelled by DDA. Admittedly the plot No.B-148, Brotherhood Coop.

Group Housing Society Limited, Vikas Puri, which was allotted to the

petitioner earlier was not such a flat whose area was not within the

restriction imposed for allotment of the subsequent flat.

Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out the draft of

the affidavit which the petitioner was required to submit at the time of

taking the possession of Flat No.363, Pocket-A1, Sector 29, Rohini,

Phase IV, Delhi, categorically stipulated that the petitioner had not

transferred any residential plot/house or flat to and of any family

members in any cooperative House Building Societies or a Group

Housing Society. The relevant stipulation of the affidavit is as under:

"I have not transferred any residential plot/house of flat to and of my family member nor I have so transferred membership in any cooperative House Building Societies or a Group Housing Society in Delhi in favour of any of my family member."

According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the

petitioner concealed that information and has given an incorrect

affidavit which would disentitle the petitioner from getting the

possession of the subsequent flats. This has not been and could not be

denied by the petitioner that such an affidavit was required to be filed

by the petitioner at the time of taking possession of the subsequent flat.

The condition for giving such an affidavit has not been challenged by

the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to give any

reasonable explanation for not giving an appropriate affidavit disclosing

about the transfer of flat No/B-148, Brotherhoold Coop. Group Housing

Society Limited, Vikas Puri, Delhi on 15th November, 1985 to Shri Atul

Kumar by GPA, Receipt, agreement to sell, registered will, agreement to

appoint arbitrator dated 29th January, 1996. The petitioner in the

circumstances was not entitled for allotment of second flat. The

petitioner also concealed the material information from the

respondent/DDA. The order of the respondent in the facts and

circumstances, cancelling the allotment of flat to the petitioner cannot

be faulted.

In the circumstances, the decision of the respondent/DDA dated

16th June, 2009 cancelling the allotment of Flat No. 363, Pocket-A1,

Sector 29, Rohini, Phase IV, Delhi allotted in the name of the petitioner

cannot be faulted. The writ petition is without any legal basis nor the

petitioner is entitled for any of the reliefs sought by her. The petition is

an abuse of process of law.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are, however, left

to bear their own costs.

September 04, 2009                                         ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'