Sheel Jain vs Dda
2010 Latest Caselaw 2819 Del

75.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Judgment dated 28.05.2010.

+     W.P.(C) 3730/2010

SHEEL JAIN                                                     ..... Petitioner
                      Through :     Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Adv.

                      versus

DDA                                                       ..... Respondent
                      Through :     Mr. Deepak Khadaria, Adv. for
                                    Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv.

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


      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?
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL):

    1. By    the      present   petition,   petitioner       seeks        quashing    of

      communication         dated     3.2.2010,   by     virtue      of    which,    the

      representation made by the petitioner was rejected. Petitioner

      seeks a direction to DDA to allot a flat at Dwarka or Rohini and in

      the alternate refund the money deposited with interest.

    2. The facts of the case, which have led to the filing of the present

      petition, are that in the year 1994, petitioner's husband applied

      for a flat under the SFS -7th Scheme of the DDA and was allotted a

      type II, First Floor, Pkt / Block 16, Sector 3, Dwarka, Delhi, under

      the said scheme. A demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to

      the husband of the petitioner on 1.2.1995. As per this demand-



W.P.(C)No.3730/2010                                            Page 1 of 3
       cum-allotment letter, husband of the petitioner was to make the

      payment in installments. The schedule of installments is as under:

              INSTALMENTS        AMOUNT                DUE DATE
              FIRST              RS.136250.00          10/03/95
              SECOND             RS.109000.00          10/09/95
              THIRD              RS.136250.00          10/03/96
              FOURTH             RS.109000.00          10/09/96



   3. As per the demand-cum-allotment letter, if the payments were not

      made as per the schedule, it would lead to automatic cancellation

      of the flat. Husband of the petitioner is stated to have made

      payments of only two installments. The husband of the petitioner

      expired on 13.9.2003. The petitioner did not make the balance

      payment, which led to the cancellation of the flat in the year

      1996.

   4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the DDA has failed to

      consider the representation dated 24.3.2008 for allotment of a

      flat. It is further submitted that the DDA has rejected the

      representation without any cogent reasons.

   5. Learned counsel for the respondent DDA submits that petitioner

      did not approach the DDA from the year 1996 uptill 2008,

      however a representation was made by the petitioner to the DDA,

      which stands rejected on 12.1.2010. Counsel further submits that

      the Scheme, in question, already stands closed in the year 1996

      itself. Counsel also submits that the medical record of the

      petitioner, filed along with the writ petition, only pertains to the

      year 2003.

   6. The facts set out in the petition itself would show that a demand-

      cum-allotment letter was issued in favour of the husband of the

W.P.(C)No.3730/2010                                   Page 2 of 3
         petitioner in the year 1995. The husband of the petitioner did not

        make the payment as demanded by the DDA and some payment

        was   made    on   9.6.1995,   20.12.1995   and    9.6.1997.    These

        payments were not made as per the schedule of payment, which

        has been reproduced above. Since the payments were not made

        within the time allowed, the allotment made in favour of the

        petitioner was automatically cancelled in the year 1996 itself.

        There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in approaching

        this Court from 1996 till 2008. Even otherwise, since the

        petitioner's husband did not make the payment as per the

        schedule in the demand-cum-allotment letter thus there is no fault

        of the DDA in cancelling the allotment. Accordingly, I find no

        grounds to entertain this petition. However, it will be open to the

        petitioner to make an application to the DDA for refund of amount.

        Along with the application the petitioner shall supply to DDA

        details of bank accounts, two photographs, three specimen

        signatures duly attested and the copies of the challan. In case the

        challans are not available with the petitioner, DDA will make the

        enquiry whether the amounts were paid or not. Upon receipt of

        the aforestated documents by the petitioner, the entire procedure

        for refund will be completed by the DDA within eight weeks.




                                                            G.S. SISTANI, J.

May 28, 2010 'msr'