Mrs.Rajni Manan vs Dda
2010 Latest Caselaw 2810 Del

17
$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    W.P.(C) 3777/2008

%                            Judgment Delivered on: 28.05.2010

MRS.RAJNI MANAN                                 ..... Petitioner
               Through:      Mr.J.R. Bajaj, Adv. for the petitioner.

                 versus

D.D.A.                                        ..... Respondent
                 Through:    Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for
                             the respondent-HSBC
                             Ms.Amita Pandey, Advocate for
                             the respondent-DDA
                             Mr.Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for the
                             respondent-Delhi Police along with
                             Inspector, Narender and Inspector Akash
                             and S.I. Sudhir Kumar and S.I. Vishal

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

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

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present petition

is set down for final hearing and disposal.

2. The facts which have led to filing of the present petition are that

in the year 1987 a flat bearing No.3270, Pocket-III, Sector-D,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, under the Self-Financing Scheme, was

allotted by the DDA to one Smt.Suyash Midha vide allotment letter

No.F.125 (6528) 83/ SFS/VK/II dated 07.12.1987. As per the writ

petition the allottee Mrs.Suyash Midha sold the said flat to

Mrs.Tripat Chaudhry by means of general power of attorney and

agreement to sell which were executed on 03.05.1989. Mrs.Tripat

Chaudhry further sold this flat to one Mr.Rajeev Kumar Chhabra

through a duly registered general power of attorney and

agreement to sell. Mr.Rajeev Kumar Chhabra, sold the same very

flat to the petitioner on 17.08.2002 and executed various

documents including general power of attorney and agreement to

sell in her favour. The said documents were duly registered with

Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Mr.Rajeev Kumar Chhabra

handed over the physical, vacant and peaceful possession of the

flat to the petitioner, who is stated to be in possession and has

also paid up to date property tax to the MCD. In order to take

benefit of the Scheme of the DDA of conversion of flat from lease-

hold to free-hold, petitioner made an application on 05.01.2006 to

the DDA and also deposited Rs.77,270/- towards conversion

charges and processing fee and also furnished all necessary

documents to the DDA. While acknowledging receipt of the

application of the petitioner, DDA vide its letter dated 27.04.2006

asked the petitioner to furnish additional documents/ information

which was complied with through letter dated 20.09.2006. The

DDA also called upon the petitioner to inform them with regard to

status of the case FIR No.77/2002 under sections

409/420/468/471/477 A IPC P.S. Connaught Place, Delhi. Since

the petitioner was neither involved nor concerned with the case

bearing FIR No.77/2002, she accordingly informed the DDA about

the same. However, on enquiry, the petitioner learnt that on a

complaint filed by the HSBC, FIR No.77/2002 was registered

against one of their employees Mrs.Tripat Chaudhry, who had

duped the bank of approximately Rs.1.40 crore; and that despite

efforts of the police, Mrs.Tripat Chaudhry could not be arrested

and was declared Proclaimed Offender on 09.09.2003. The

petitioner is stated to have made various visits to the office of the

DDA and also made various representations for conversion of the

flat, but to no effect. Petitioner received a communication dated

14.01.2008 from the DDA, informing that due to court case,

conversion issue cannot be decided and clearance from crime

branch is also required.

3. By present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of this

communication dated 14.01.2008. Petitioner also seeks a

direction for conversion of the flat bearing No.3270, Pocket-III,

Sector-D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, from lease-hold to free-hold.

Counsel for petitioner submits that flat in question was initially

allotted by the DDA to one Smt.Suyash Midha in the year 1987,

who in turn sold the said flat to Mrs.Tripat Chaudhry against whom

HSBC had filed an FIR in the year 2002. Counsel for petitioner

also submits that Mrs.Tripat Chaudhry had sold the said flat to one

Mr.Rajeev Kumar Chhabra, through registered agreement to sell

and general power of attorney. Mr.Rajeev Kumar Chhabra in turn

sold the flat to the petitioner on 17.08.2002 by executing

necessary documents, including registered general power of

attorney and agreement to sell. Copies of the registered

documents executed by Mrs.Tripat Chaudhry in favour of

Mr.Rajeev Kumar Chhabra and registered documents executed by

Mr.Rajeev Kumar Chhabra in favour of the petitioner have been

placed on record. Counsel for petitioner submits that transaction

entered into between the petitioner and Mr.Rajeev Kumar

Chhabra was a genuine transaction for which sale consideration

has been paid to Mr. Rajeev Kumar Chhabra and possession has

been handed over to the petitioner by the seller. He also submits

that neither the petitioner nor the flat in question has any

connection whatsoever with the FIR No.77/2002, which has been

filed by the HSBC.

4. Counsel for petitioner relies on the statement made by Mr.Piyush

Tiwari, Associate Vice-President (Legal), HSBC in Court on

21.05.2010 and the subsequent affidavit dated 28.05.2010 that

the bank has no concern with the flat in question. Counsel for

petitioner also relies on the second status report filed by the

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing Crime

Branch dated 26.05.2010, which was handed over in the court

wherein crime branch has clarified that due to clerical error in the

earlier status report it was inadvertently mentioned that flat No.D-

III, 3270, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was subject matter of a court

case and a receiver had been appointed.

5. While referring to the conversion policy of the DDA wherein as per

clause 8 in case of any legal dispute relating to the title of the

property, conversion is not to be allowed, counsel for petitioner

contended that there is no dispute pending in any court with

regard to the title of the flat bearing No.3270, Pocket-III, Sector-D,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, thus the communication dated

14.01.2008, is bad in law, has been issued without any application

of mind, is against the terms of the policy and thus liable to be

quashed.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA. In the counter

affidavit the chain of events with regard to the purchase and sale

of the flat from Smt.Suyash Midha to Mrs.Tripat Chaudhry and

from Mrs.Tripat Chaudhry to Mr.Rajeev Kumar Chhabra and from

Mr.Rajeev Kumar Chhabra to the present petitioner has not been

disputed.

7. Counsel for DDA submits that the case of the petitioner for

conversion of the flat could not be considered by the DDA only in

view of the communication received from the crime branch that

no further transaction regarding the said flat be made without

clearance from the crime branch. It is contended by counsel for

the DDA that in view of the communication received from the

crime branch, the DDA did not deem fit to consider the application

of the petitioner for conversion. The first status report on behalf

of Delhi Police was filed on 12.10.2009 while giving a brief history

of the case pending against Mrs.Tripat Chaudhry, it was stated in

para 7 of the status report that the complainant bank had filed a

suit for recovery and a receiver has been appointed with regard to

property bearing No.D-3, 3270, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, subject

matter of the writ petition.

8. During the course of hearing counsel for the petitioner had made

a submission that to the knowledge of the petitioner no receiver

had been appointed by any court with respect to flat bearing

No.3270, Pocket-III, Sector-D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. This court

had directed that a notice be issued to HSBC to explain their

stand. On 21.05.2010 Mr.Piyush Tiwari, Associate Vice-President

(Legal), HSBC, appeared in the court and he made a statement on

instructions and on the basis of the record maintained by the bank

that SFS flat bearing No.D-III/3270, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, had

not been mortgaged to the bank; and that bank has no lien

against the said flat and that bank would have no objection if the

DDA considers the application of the petitioner for conversion of

the flat. On 21.05.2010, counsel for Delhi Police sought time to

take instructions in the matter.

9. Today, a fresh status report has been handed over in court today,

which is taken on record. In the status report it has been

categorically stated that a receiver has been appointed on

11.10.2004 with direction to take possession of mortgaged

property i.e. flat D-II/2295, Vasant Kunj, Delhi, which belongs to

the accused Mrs.Tripat Chaudhry. It was clarified that due to

clerical error the wrong flat number was given in the earlier status

report.

10. Taking into consideration the statement made by the Associate

Vice-President (Legal), HSBC, as also the affidavit dated

28.05.2010 wherein the bank has clearly stated that the flat,

subject matter of the present writ petition, has not been

mortgaged to the bank neither the bank has any lien against this

property and further categorical statement that the bank would

have no objection if the DDA considers the application of the

petitioner for conversion, as also the clarification rendered by the

crime branch that a receiver had in fact been appointed with

respect to the flat bearing No.D-II/2295, Vasant Kunj, Delhi, it can

safely be said that there is no dispute with regard to the flat

bearing No.3270, Pocket-III, Sector-D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

The photocopies of the registered agreement to sell and general

power of attorney executed by Mr.Rajeev Kumar Chhabra, in

favour of the petitioner, show that petitioner had purchased this

flat from Mr.Rajeev Kumar Chhabra after paying the sale

consideration and the petitioner is in settled possession of the

aforesaid flat. Photocopies of the house tax receipt also shows

that the current property tax has been paid by the petitioner.

Accordingly, present petition is allowed and communication dated

14.01.2008 is quashed. DDA is directed to consider the

application of the petitioner for conversion from lease-hold to free-

hold, as per its policy. No order as to costs.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

May 28, 2010 'ssn'