Brinda Ghosh vs Dda
2012 Latest Caselaw 966 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               W.P.(C) 6871/2009

                                            Decided on: 13th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
BRINDA GHOSH                                                  ..... Petitioner
                                            Through : Ms. Richa Kapur with
                                            Ms. Anupma Singh, Advocates.


                   versus
DDA                                                            ..... Respondent
                                            Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura,
                                            Advocate

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

for directions to the respondent/DDA to hold a mini draw of lots and allot a

MIG flat in her favour, under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 (in

short 'the NPRS 1979') against registration No.13495, whereunder the

deceased father of the petitioner, Shri Amal Chandra Biswas was earlier

registered.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1979, late Shri Amal

Chandra Biswas got registered with the respondent/DDA under the NPRS

1979. At the time of registration, as required by the respondent/DDA, he

had furnished two addresses in his application form, one was his residential

address and the other was his occupational address. The petitioner's father

had typed a note in the column of "occupational address", in the

application, for the purpose of correspondence, stating inter alia that his

occupation address was "C/o M/s Voltas Limited, 31, Najafgarh Road, Delhi-

110015‟.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid

registration, late Shri Amal Chandra Biswas made regular visits to the office

of the respondent/DDA to enquire about the status of his allotment.

However, he was repeatedly informed that he was a wait-listed applicant. On

31.12.1991, the petitioner's father expired. He was survived by his wife,

i..e, mother of the petitioner. However, she did not take any steps to

approach the respondent/DDA for transfer of the registration in her name.

The position remained the same right upto 2.3.2008, when she expired. It

is the case of the petitioner that as the sole surviving legal heir after the

demise of her mother, she decided to follow up the pending registration of

her father with the respondent/DDA and made a request to get the same

mutated in her name.

4. On 4.8.2008, the petitioner submitted all requisite documents for

the purpose of mutation. On 12.9.2008, the petitioner furnished further

documents as called upon by the respondent/DDA. As per the petitioner,

after completion of all necessary formalities and verification by the

respondent/DDA, the mutation took place in her favour, vide letter dated

7.10.2008 issued by the respondent/DDA (at page 27 of the paper book).

Thereafter, upon inquiry, the petitioner came to know that a flat in Dwarka

Zone had been allotted to her father in the year 2002, but at the relevant

time, the respondent/DDA had dispatched a demand-cum-allotment letter at

his residential address as given in his application and not at the occupational

address. The aforesaid demand-cum-allotment letter was returned back

undelivered and subsequently, the allotment was automatically cancelled by

the respondent/DDA.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the respondent/DDA

had never dispatched the demand-cum-allotment letter at the occupational

address of her deceased father, despite the fact that there was a specific

note endorsed by him in the application form that all correspondences were

to be sent to his occupational address. She states that on 5.11.2008, the

petitioner had made a representation to the respondent/DDA to bring to

their notice the aforesaid default on their part. It is claimed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that being the sole surviving legal heir of the

original registrant, the petitioner had stepped into the shoes of her parents

and is entitled to claim allotment of the flat under the NPRS 1979.

6. Counsel for the respondent/DDA refutes the aforesaid contention

of the counsel for the petitioner that DDA had mutated the name of the

petitioner in its record. She draws the attention of this Court to the letter

dated 7.10.2008 issued by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner to state

that the said letter was addressed to the petitioner only for "refund

purposes" and not for "reference purposes", as stated in the typed version

of the said document placed by the petitioner at page 28 of the paper book.

She states that the aforesaid letter dated 7.10.2008 cannot legally entitle

the petitioner to claim fruition of the registration made in favour of her

deceased father. She points out that this is a case where the original

registrant had expired as long back as on 31.12.1991 and even if it is

assumed that the respondent/DDA had committed an error in dispatching

the correspondence to the deceased registrant only at his residential address

and not at his occupational address, the same would not be of any

consequence for the reason that by the time the allotment had matured and

the demand-cum-allotment letter was dispatched by the respondent/DDA to

the registrant in the year 2002, he had expired almost a decade before that

on 31.12.1991 and no steps had been taken by his wife as his successor-in-

interest to seek mutation of the registration in her favour. In fact the

mother of the petitioner expired long thereafter, i.e., on 2.3.2008 and

admittedly, even she did not approach DDA at any stage with a request for

mutation of the registration in her favour right from the year 1991 when her

husband expired, till her demise in the year 2008.

7. The Court finds force in the aforesaid submission made by the

counsel for the respondent/DDA. It is not denied by the petitioner that

upon demise of her father on 31.12.1991, he was survived by his wife

(mother of the petitioner) as his legal heir and that she did not take any

steps whatsoever to approach the respondent/DDA for getting the

registration mutated in her favour. It is also an undisputed fact that the

mother of the petitioner expired on 2.3.2008, which was after a period of

seventeen long years from the date of the demise of Late Amal Chandra

Biswas and after a period of 6 years from the date of issuance of the

demand-cum-allotment letter to the original registrant. It was only after the

demise of the mother of the petitioner that it is alleged that the petitioner

started to make efforts to locate papers for the registration and she sought

to approach the respondent/DDA to intimate them about the death of the

original registrant and also his wife and to inquire about the status of the

allotment under the NPRS 1979.

8. The aforesaid explanation offered for approaching the Court so

belatedly cannot cut any ice for the reason that it was incumbent on the part

of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, i.e., her mother, to have

approached the respondent/DDA within a reasonable period from the date of

the demise of her husband for getting the registration mutated in her favour.

However, no such steps were taken by her during her lifetime.

9. Merely because the petitioner now claims that upon the demise

of her mother in the year 2008, she had discovered some documents

relating to the registration, that in itself cannot mean that she can approach

the respondent/DDA at any odd time asking for mutation of the registration

in her favour. Furthermore, a perusal of the letter dated 7.8.2010 addressed

by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner which forms the basis of the claim

of the petitioner that the respondent/DDA had carried out mutation of the

registration in her favour, falsifies such a stand. Rather, a perusal of the

original records produced by the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA,

which contains the carbon duplicate of the letter dated 7.8.2010, bears out

the submission of the counsel for the respondent/DDA that the said letter

was issued calling upon the petitioner to furnish the necessary documents

only for the purposes of refund and not for „reference purposes‟ as wrongly

typed out in the typed version of the document placed by the petitioner at

page 28 of the paper book.

10. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the successor-in-

interest of the original registrant had not taken any steps to get the

registration mutated in her name, the respondent/DDA is under an

obligation to mutate the registration in the favour of the petitioner upon the

demise of her mother.

11. The aforesaid argument is completely fallacious and liable to be

turned down. It is not permissible for an applicant to keep sleeping over her

rights for an inordinately long duration and wake up one fine morning to

claim a statutory right against a Government authority. Both, the petitioner

as also her deceased mother ought to have shown some diligence on their

part to keep the registration of Late Amal Chandra Biswas alive. However,

they have miserably failed to demonstrate that they were vigilant. It is

pertinent to note that the NPRS 1979 in question was floated in the year

1979 and three decades have already passed and still the petitioner and

many others like her keep approaching the Court seeking allotments under

the said Scheme.

12. No doubt, delay and latches have been found to have occurred

for genuine reasons in some cases pertaining to allotment of MIG Flats under

the said Scheme right upto the year 2004, which also dates back to almost

eight years, but such a situation cannot be permitted to continue forever.

Every Housing Scheme that is floated by a Government agency has a life

and timeline and it ought to exhaust itself thereafter. It is not that a

successor-in-interest of an original registrant can rise from his/her slumber

as per his/her convenience and approach the Court claiming to be a legal

heir and thus seek entitlement to mutation of the registration in his/her

favour. The present case is one such case where the Court declines to

exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner for the reason that the

petitioner has failed to offer a just or a sufficient reason to explain the delay

of about seventeen years in approaching the DDA with a request for

mutation of the registration in her favour.

13. While disposing of the present writ petition, it is directed that

henceforth, the Registry shall ensure that in all cases relating to relief

sought in respect of registrations made under Housing Schemes floated by

the DDA, at the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioners shall not only

file typed copies of illegible documents, they shall also place on record the

originals/carbon duplicates of such documents relied upon by them in so far

as they relate to the correspondence exchanged by parties with the DDA so

that the Court has the benefit of scrutinizing such documents and also to

obviate any scope of misreading/misinterpretation of such documents, as

has happened in the present case.

14. The petition is disposed of, while leaving the parties to bear their

own costs.

                                                              (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 13, 2012                                                JUDGE
sk