Saraswati Datta vs Dda
2012 Latest Caselaw 3035 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            W.P.(C) 7477/2010

                                           Date of Decision: 8th May, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF
SARASWATI DATTA                                            ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. S.K. Bhaduri, Advocate with
                         Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate

                    versus

DDA                                                       ..... Respondent
                         Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, Advocate with
                         Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. It has been said that "The sum of all human wisdom is contained

in these two words: Wait and Hope." The petitioner herein is one such

person who has been waiting patiently for thirty long years of her life in the

fond hope that one day the respondent/DDA will help realise her dream of

owning her own home in the capital of the Country, only to be cryptically

informed at the end of the long wait that her dream was only a mirage and

that the flat allotted to her in the year 1990, and for which she had paid the

entire demanded amount, had been allotted by DDA to a third party behind

her back and without even an intimation issued to her in this regard.

2. The facts of the case are uncomplicated. On 04.01.1980, the

petitioner had got herself registered with the respondent/DDA under the SFS

Scheme for allotment of a category III flat. On 13.11.1990, a draw of lots

was held by the respondent/DDA under the said Scheme. The petitioner was

declared successful in the said draw of lots and was allotted a flat by the

respondent/DDA in terms of the letter bearing block dates 26.01.1990-

30.11.1990. The estimated cost of flat allotted to the petitioner on the first

and second floor in Block C, Pocket 9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was

`4,77,200/-. The petitioner was required to make the payment of 90% of

the estimated cost of the flat in four installments starting from 04.10.1990

and ending on 04.04.1992. It is an admitted case of the parties that 90% of

the estimated cost of the flat was duly deposited by the petitioner well within

the time granted by the respondent/DDA. Thereafter, the petitioner kept

representing to the respondent/DDA from the year 1992 to the year 1999,

for issuance of a demand-cum-allotment letter to her, but all her requests

fell on deaf ears.

3. Finally, on the basis of draw of lots that was held on 15.05.1998,

the petitioner was issued a final demand-cum-allotment letter dated

27.09.1999 by the respondent/DDA wherein, her statement of account was

duly reflected and she was called upon to pay the balance sum of

`6,37,157/- on or before 24.01.2000 for the allotment of flat bearing

No.8203, category II/III on the F/f, in block B-11 at Vasant Kunj. The

petitioner proceeded to deposit the aforesaid amount on 14.10.1999 which

was also well before the cut-off date. Thereafter, the petitioner waited

patiently in the hope of receiving a possession letter in respect of the flat

that had been allotted to her. However, for the next seven years, the

respondent/DDA went into hibernation. On 19.06.2006, the respondent/DDA

woke up from its deep slumber and wrote to the petitioner calling upon her

to submit the original fourth copies of the challans dated 30.12.1990 and

04.10.1991, so that further action could be taken in her case. Immediately

upon receipt of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner replied on 06.07.2006

enclosing the original copies of the challans and requesting the

respondent/DDA to process her case expeditiously. On 01.09.2006, the

respondent/DDA again wrote a letter to the petitioner calling upon her to

submit an indemnity bond duly discharged for the loss of the FDR submitted

by her to the Department which was also complied with by her. The

petitioner was also called upon to submit the original copy of the challan of

`15,000/- which she did.

4. Thereafter, the respondent/DDA wrote a letter dated 23.11.2006

to the petitioner and called upon her to submit the conveyance deed papers

duly stamped by the office of the Collector of Stamps with a copy of her PAN

number or a declaration form for taking further action. The petitioner

promptly responded to the aforesaid letter by submitting an application, that

was received in the office of the respondent/DDA on 04.12.2006, wherein it

was stated that all the requisite formalities had been completed by her

except for submitting the conveyance deed and that she was informed by

the Collector of Stamps as also by the Housing Department of the

respondent/DDA that a signed copy of the duly filled up conveyance deed

paper alongwith a covering letter from the competent officer in DDA would

be required to enable the Collector of Stamps to accept the stamp duty and

stamp the conveyance deed. But the petitioner did not get any response

from the respondent/DDA. For the next four years, the petitioner kept on

making representations to the respondent/DDA right up to August, 2010

requesting that she be handed over the signed copy of the duly filled up

conveyance deed but all her pleas fell on deaf ears. Finally, when the

petitioner‟s patience started wearing thin, she filed the present petition on

01.11.2010, praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the

respondent/DDA to hand over possession of the flat that was allotted to her

or to allot a flat that was similar to the one that had been allotted to her at

Vasant Kunj and further, to direct the respondent/DDA to pay her damages

to the tune of `60,00,000/- on account of depriving her of the use and

enjoyment of the flat allotted to her and causing her mental harassment.

5. Notice was issued on the present petition on 02.11.2010,

whereafter pleadings were completed. A perusal of the counter affidavit

filed by the respondent/DDA reveals that the respondent/DDA has admitted

that an allocation letter bearing block dates 26.01.1990-30.11.1990 for

making payment of 90% of the estimated cost of the flat had been issued by

it to the petitioner and that she was allotted a Category-III flat bearing

No.8203, Sector-B, Pocket-II, first floor and second floor, Vasant Kunj, New

Delhi, in a computerized draw of lots that was held on 15.05.1998. It is also

admitted that the fifth and final demand letter had been issued to the

petitioner on 27.09.1999 and she had duly deposited all the amount

demanded from her. However, it is averred in the counter affidavit that

conveyance deed papers were issued to the petitioner and the same were

not deposited back with the DDA and since the allottee did not even

approach the respondent/DDA, the flat was allotted to some other allottees,

namely, Mr. Satish Kumar and Ms. Renu Ahuja. After the possession of the

said flat was handed over to them as early as on 04.03.2003, a conveyance

deed was executed in their favour by DDA on 06.09.2006 and the same was

finally got registered on 21.09.2006. It is, thus the stand of the

respondent/DDA that since the petitioner had failed to submit the

conveyance deed papers duly stamped from the office of the Collector of

Stamps, the possession letter could not be issued to her and as she did not

bother to approach the respondent/DDA, the flat came to be allotted to

some other allottees.

6. The averments made in the counter affidavit insofar as they run

contrary to the submissions made by the petitioner in the writ petition have

been categorically denied by her in the rejoinder filed on 09.05.2011 and it

has been reiterated by the petitioner that the respondent/DDA could not

have allotted the flat to a third party when she had already paid the entire

cost of the subject flat as demanded by DDA and that too well within the

stipulated time and that thereafter she was not required to do anything

further. Counsel for the petitioner states that even if certain legal

formalities pertaining to stamping of the conveyance deed were required to

be completed, it could not be a ground for cancellation of the flat, more so

when no such cancellation letter was ever issued by the respondent/DDA to

the petitioner and in all these years the respondent/DDA has continued to

retain and enjoy the entire amount deposited by the petitioner with it from

time to time w.e.f. the year 1990 onwards.

7. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondent/DDA in its

counter affidavit that it was the petitioner, who had failed to deposit back

the conveyance deed papers with it and consequently the respondent/DDA

had proceeded to allot the flat to another allottee, counsel for the

respondent/DDA was called upon to hand over the file of the department for

perusal. A perusal of the records maintained by the respondent/DDA are a

complete eye opener and a telling comment on the extent to which the

officers of the respondent authority are willing to go to conceal material facts

from the court and embroider the truth to the point that the correct factual

position end up looking like fiction and fiction is dressed up to give the

impression of truth. Simply stated, the averments made in the counter

affidavit filed by a senior and responsible officer like the Director (Housing),

DDA are completely contrary to the notings in the file of the department

relating to the petitioner. The relevant extracts of the noting file of the

department are a revelation and reproduced hereinbelow for ready

reference:-

Page 40/N From PP This is a PH case. File called from M/Wing. The allottee/Registrant present in the office and has submitted an affidavit in r/o loss of original copy of challan.

AAO/HAU-IV may please get further action taken in this case.

AAO-I/SFS 18.09.2006 AAO/HAU-IV

Page 41/N Sh./Smt. Saraswati Dutta has submitted the following documents in lieu of FDR/acknowledgment No.010031 dated 13.11.1979 for `15,000/- misplaced/lost by him/her

for issue of surrender slip against allotment of flat vide file No.126(476)90/SFS/VK/III:-

1. Indemnity Bond duly attested by the Notary Public/Sub-Registrar (P-6).

2. Forth copy of challan No. or affidavit in lieu of challan No.31 dated 13.11.1979 for `15,000/- (P-165).

3. Photo and signature duly attested (P-118 + 2 page)

4. Attested copy of Ration Card/I Card/Election Card.

5. Photocopy of allotment letter (P-140).

The original R/R No.31 placed at 54/C. The above documents are in order and if agreed, the I/Bond may be accepted for issue of surrender slip.

Signed 25.09.2006 AAO/HAU-IV

S/Slip issued and placed opposite vide No.78172 dated 04.10.2006

Sd/-

04.10.2006 AAO/HAUIV AAO/SFSI

Page 42/N In this case, the final D/L was issued on 27.09.99 (CP-115). In response, the allottee paid the demanded amount on 14.10.99 and submitted all the requisite documents on 15.10.99 (CP 116 to 124), but the conveyance deed papers seems to have not been issued to the allottee to get the same stamped by Collector of Stamps and the case is kept in abeyance by Management Wing till April 2006. The case is attended after the allottee represented by her letter dated 10.3.06 (CP-158). All the rest of the formalities have been completed by the allottee. The reason for keeping the case in abeyance from 10/99 to 4/06 is best known to M/Wing as it could not be ascertained from file.

However, we may request M/Wing to issue CD papers to the allottee for stamping please.

Singed 9.10.06 AAO-I/SFS

Page 43/N

As per Final D&C sheet kept at CP-167, full cost of the flat has been realized.

However, M/Wing has to attend to the following observations:-

(a) Despite of the payment made in time and documents submitted on 15.10.99 (CP-124), this file remained dumped upto April 2006. Thus, this is a fit case of fixation of responsibility on account of laxity.

(b) The R.R. is not available in the file. The same may be got traced out or its loss be got condoned.

(c) Though other documents were submitted in time, yet the CD papers are not available in the file. M/Wing may ensure that CD papers were not annexed to DAL, otherwise the allottee shall be liable to pay maint. charges.

(d) Intimation in r/o PAN No. or GIR No. be obtained or declaration in Form 60 may be obtained.

(e) Vacancy position of the flat may also be checked.

(signed) 09.10.06 AAO-I/SFS Sr.AO/SFS DD/SFS

Page 45/N Reference the minutes of the Housing Accounts Wing at page 43/N and 44/N. Though it is a fact that the case remain pending from 15.10.99 to 4/2006. It is further stated that 5th and final demand letter was issued on 27.9.99 from the office of Sr.AO (SFS), therefore,

„x‟ [Management Wing is not in a position to comment whether the C.D. papers were sent to the allottee or not.]

We may also issue Memo to the concerned Dealing Asstt. who has not attended this case in the year 1999 and ask the allottee to submit the copy of PAN or declaration in Form 60.

We may obtain the approval of the Competent Authority, i.e., Director (Housing)-I for condonation of the RR in the case Smt. Saraswati Datta regarding allotment of flat No.8203, Sector-B, PktII, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. We may also confirm the vacant position of above said flat from concerned Division.

Submitted please.

DA/20.10.06 A.D.(SFS) Dy. Director (SFS) Director (Housing)-I:- In the first instance, issues raised by finance wing may be attended and necessary action be taken. Position about „x‟ above be confirmed from finance wing. It has also not been clarified how RRs are missing.

Page 49/N Smt. Saraswati Dutta met in the public hearing of Commissioner (H) on 8.2.2007 and requested for issuance of the possession letter in respect of flat No.8203, Cat. III, First Floor, in Sector B-11, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

Being an old allotment, a letter dated 22.11.06 was sent to EE/SWD-2 to intimate the present status of flat No. B-11/8203, Vasant Kunj but no report has been received from the site office so far.

Thereafter, the flat No.8203, First Floor, Vasant Kunj was inspected by the Jr. Engineer of Housing Enforcement Branch. He has informed that flat was found locked and the occupant was not living there and allottee has made encroachment on public land as well as constructed extra room. On local enquiry to J.E. concerned, RWA informed that the flat is in possession of Shri Narender Kumar and he is residing in Chandigarh.

On perusal of the copy of the Conveyance Deed, it is revealed that the said flat was allotted to Shri Satish Kumar & Renu Ahuja in Vasant Kunj HIG Scheme in the year 2002.

Thus, it becomes a case of double allotment. At this juncture, we may sent the file to System Department to intimate Cat. III vacant flats available in the Vasant Kunj so that we may adjust the allottee out of the available flats through a mini draw.

Submitted please.

DA/23.02.2007 A.D.(SFS) Dy. Director (SFS) Director (Housing)-I Commissioner (H)

Page 58/N PUC at page No.304/C dated 19.09.2008 received from Smt. Saraswati Dutta vide which she has submitted her WILLINGNESS to accept a three bed room flat at Motia Khan Delhi in lieu of her flat bearing No.8203, B-11, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. The brief fact of the case is as under:-

Smt. Saraswati Dutta was an allocatee of SFS Cat-III Flat, in sector-C9, F.F. & S.F. Duplex, in Vasant Kunj and deposited all four installments. A flat bearing No.8203, B- 11, First Floor, Second Floor, Vasant Kunj was allotted to her in the draw held on 15.05.98 and intimation letter was issued to her dated 23.06.98 (Page No.22/C). The final demand letter was issued to her on 27.09.99 (Page

No.115/C) against which she deposited the required amount on 14.10.99 vide challan No.6943 (page No.116/C) with the request to issue the possession letter of allotted flat bearing No.8203, B-11, First Floor, Second Floor, Vasanj Kunj. She also furnished the relevant documents as demanded.

Smt. Saraswati Dutta met in the public hearing of Commr (H) dated 08.02.08 with the request for issuance of possession letter in respect of above allotted flat. Being old allotment, a letter was issued to the Executive Engineer SWD-2 dated 22.11.06 to intimate the status of above allotted flat but no report has been received from Executive Engineer SWD-2, DDA so far. The case was referred to Enforcement Branch for site inspection. The J.E./Enforcement has reported that the flat has since been allotted to Sh. Satish Kumar and Renu Jain and submitted photo copy of C.D. in support of his statement (Page 214 to 216/C).

On perusal of the copy of Conveyance Deed it was revealed that the said flat was allotted to Sh. Satish Kumar and Renu Jain in Vasant Kunj under HIG Scheme in the year of 2002 vide file bearing No.F.3/365(725)-002/VK/HIG/DDA. Thus it becomes a case of double allotment. As per the report of DD(System) there is no vacant flat available in Vasant Kunj of Cat-III (Page 279 to 280/C). However, Commr(H) has ordered to adjust her for allotment of a flat through Mini draw.

In view of the above, it is seen that no Cat-III flat of first floor and second floor is available in Vasant Kunj. However, Cat-II flats are available in the Vasant Kunj. The applicant can adjust in Cat-II, if she gives her consent in writing. Moreover, she has given her consent for allotment of Cat-III flat in MOTIA KHAN.

Submitted for further order.

DA/17.11.08 AD(SFS) DD(SFS) Dir(H)-I

8. The noting file of the Department reveals that no cancellation

letter with respect to the flat allotted to the petitioner was ever issued by

the respondent/DDA. Rather, the respondent/DDA has all along maintained

that the petitioner had paid all the amounts as were demanded from her and

the same was got verified from the accounts wing. Further, the petitioner

had also completed the necessary formalities of submitting an indemnity

bond and the fourth copy of the challan of `15,000/-. The fact that the

petitioner had visited the office of the respondent/DDA finds mention in the

noting dated 18.09.2006 (Page 40/N). In the noting of 25.09.2006, it was

confirmed that the petitioner had completed all the requisite formalities by

submitting the relevant documents for issuance of a surrender slip for

allotment of the subject flat (Page 41/N). Further, in the noting dated

09.10.2006, it was stated that the conveyance deed papers seemed to have

not been issued to the allottee for her to have got the same stamped by the

Collector of Stamps and that her case was kept in abeyance by the

Management Wing till April 2006.

9. It is interesting to note that the officers of the DDA were

themselves wondering as to the reasons for having kept the case of the

petitioner in abeyance right from October 1999 to April 2006 and the

reasons for same could not be ascertained from the perusal of the file (Page

42/N). Again, a request was forwarded to the AAO(I) of the SFS Department

for issuance of the conveyance deed papers to the petitioner for purposes of

stamping. Yet again, in the noting dated 09.10.2006, it was observed that

despite timely payment made by the petitioner and the documents that were

submitted by her on 15.10.1999, the file had remained dumped in the

department right upto April, 2006 and that it was a fit case for fixation of

responsibility on account of laxity (Page 43/N). In the noting dated

20.10.2006, the Dealing Assistant had even suggested that a memo be

issued to the concerned Dealing Assistant, who had not attended to the case

in the year 1999 and thereafter, placed the petitioner‟s file before the

Director (Housing) for condonation of registration records regarding

allotment of the subject flat to her. Pertinently, no action was initiated by

the senior officers on the recommendation made for fixing responsibility for

making the petitioner wait for so many years for taking possession of the

flat.

10. The Director (Housing), DDA had made an observation on

02.11.2006 that the Finance Wing of the respondent/DDA may address the

issue as to whether the conveyance deed papers were sent to the petitioner

or not and it also be got clarified how the registration records in this case

were missing (Page 45/N). The noting file from 09.10.2006 to 23.02.2007

continued to deal with verification of the vacancy position of the flat from the

site office of the Department but is silent on the aforesaid aspect. On

23.02.2007, it was noted that the petitioner had appeared in a public

hearing on 08.02.2007 and had requested for issuance of a possession letter

of the allotted flat. Thereafter, an inspection of the flat did take place on

site and the Department realized that it was a case of double allotment as

the subject flat was already in possession of one Shri Narender Kumar and

the same had been allotted in the year 2002 to one Shri Satish Kumar and

Ms. Renu Ahuja under the Vasant Kunj HIG Scheme (Page 49/N).

11. After the aforesaid facts came to light, instead of being forthright

and admitting its fault, the respondent/DDA started to cover up its tracks by

starting a verification process within the Department to find out if there were

other flats available for allotment to the petitioner, so that a mini draw of

lots could be held for allotment of a flat to her. This process culminated in

the note dated 17.11.2008 placed before the Director (Housing), DDA,

wherein it was observed that while there were no category III flats on the

first and second floor in Vasant Kunj, there were category II flats available in

Vasant Kunj. It was further noted that the petitioner could be adjusted in a

category II flat if she was willing to give her consent. It was also noticed

that the petitioner had given her consent for allotment of a category III flat

in Motia Khan. Pertinently, at page 304 of the Department‟s file is placed

the written consent given by the petitioner for allotment of a three bedroom

flat at Motia Khan. Yet, the respondent/DDA did not move an inch to allot

an alternate flat to the petitioner.

12. Finally, fed up with the grossly non-responsive and indifferent

approach adopted by the respondent/DDA, the petitioner resorted to the

Right to Information Act, 2005 and filed an application with the

respondent/DDA seeking information with regard to the subject flat and it

was only then that a reply was submitted by the Deputy Director, SFS

(Housing), DDA informing her that the subject flat that had been allotted to

her had been subsequently allotted to a third party due to non-submission of

the conveyance deed by the petitioner.

13. The contents of the noting file of the Department are however in

stark contrast to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the

Director (Housing), DDA and clearly bring out the inconsistencies in the said

affidavit. Instead of conceding that the entire fault lay at their door and

fairly admitting to their gross indifference and inaction for such a prolonged

period, the respondent/DDA has conveniently chosen to pass on the buck to

the petitioner by blaming her for not submitting the conveyance deed. This

is in the teeth of the uncertainty expressed by the officers of DDA in the

noting file as to whether the documents of the conveyance deed had ever

been forwarded by DDA to the petitioner to enable her to approach the

Collector of Stamps for purposes of stamping. Counsel for the petitioner has

also placed on record copies of a blank format of the conveyance deed that

was required to be furnished to the petitioner to point out that the standard

procedure is that the said documents are required to be filled up by the

respondent/DDA and then enclosed with a covering letter and only thereafter

could the petitioner have submitted the said document to the Collector of

Stamps for the purposes of stamping.

14. The manner in which the respondent/DDA has proceeded to

process the case of the petitioner for possession of the subject flat is

appalling to say the least. Instead of holding an enquiry within the

department and nailing down the errant officers, who had failed to discharge

their duty from the year 1999 to 2006, and even thereafter the

respondent/DDA has simply chosen to shrug its shoulders and file a

misleading and evasive affidavit containing half truths and incorrect facts

and seeking to blame the petitioner for failing to submit the conveyance

deed papers to the respondent/DDA. The records produced by the counsel

for the respondent/DDA are to the contrary and clearly reveal that it is a

case of double allotment, for which the responsibility lies at the door of the

respondent/DDA alone. This fact has been conveniently skipped over by

DDA in its counter affidavit. Instead, the correct facts have been sought to

be given an entirely different colour and it has specifically been averred in

para 6 of the affidavit that since the Conveyance Deed documents had not

been received back and the petitioner failed to approach DDA, the flat was

allotted to some third parties. As is evident from the noting file, this is,

however, far from the truth.

15. Even after the present petition came to be filed by the petitioner,

the respondent/DDA did not make any effort to hold an enquiry to bring to

book the officers, who were guilty of dereliction of duty. Instead of

redeeming itself and taking remedial measures after the petitioner‟s plight

was brought to the notice of the respondent/DDA, it has continued to gloss

over the truth and acted in a bureaucratic fashion by defending its actions

and filing a counter affidavit, which run completely contrary to the true facts

contained in its own records.

16. A perusal of the file produced by the learned counsel for the

respondent/DDA shows that the para-wise comments in this case were

prepared by the Deputy Director, (SFS Housing), Assistant Director (SFS

Housing) and the Dealing Assistant, (SFS Housing) and then forwarded to

the learned counsel for preparation of the counter affidavit. There is not a

whisper in the comments about the true and correct facts as contained in

the file maintained by the department. Even the reply dated 16.09.2008

furnished by the Deputy Director (SFS), Housing, DDA in response to the

information that had been sought by the petitioner under the RTI Act in

respect of issuance of possession letter of the subject flat sought to

stonewall the issue and DDA did not hesitate in furnishing incorrect

information to the effect that as the conveyance deed papers had not been

received from the petitioner, the flat was re-allotted to a third party as per

policy, whereas the reality is that the allotment of the flat to some other

allottee had taken place sometime in the year 2002 and the same was got

registered in their name upon execution of a conveyance deed by the DDA

on 06.09.2006. Contemporaneously, between June 2006 and December

2006, DDA kept on corresponding with the petitioner in respect of the very

same flat and even called upon her to submit the Conveyance Deed papers

for processing her case for possession of the subject flat, which was not

even available for possession.

17. In view of the aforesaid facts that have emerged on a perusal of

the noting file of the respondent/DDA, it is deemed appropriate to direct the

respondent/DDA to take necessary steps forthwith to allot a category III flat

to the petitioner either in Vasant Kunj or in Motia Khan as per the option

exercised by her vide letter dated 15.09.2008 by holding a mini draw of lots

within a period of eight weeks from today. No further amounts shall be

demanded by the respondent/DDA from the petitioner over and above the

amount already deposited by her in terms of the demand-cum-allotment

letter dated 27.09.1999. The result of the draw of lots shall be

communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date

of holding the same. The possession of the flat allotted to the petitioner in

the draw of lots shall be handed over to her within a period of two weeks

from the date of her completing the requisite formalities if any in that

regard.

18. However, the matter cannot be permitted to rest here. This is indeed a

sorry case of bureaucratic apathy towards a senior citizen, who has moved

heaven and earth to seek possession of a flat that had matured for allotment

in her favour as long back as in the year 1990. The present petition is

therefore allowed with costs of `50,000/- imposed on the respondent/DDA to

be paid to the petitioner within eight weeks. The said costs shall be

recovered proportionately from all the defaulting officer(s).

19. At the same time, it is deemed appropriate to issue notices to show

cause to Mr. S.K. Jain, Director (Housing), DDA, who has sworn the counter

affidavit, the then Deputy Director, (SFS Housing), Asstt. Director (SFS

Housing) and Dealing Assistant (SFS Housing), who had prepared and

forwarded the comments to the counsel for preparation of the counter

affidavit for them to explain as to why the Court should not proceed against

them for deliberate and willful concealment of material facts so as to mislead

the court and for drafting, swearing and filing a false affidavit, which as

noticed above, runs contrary to the records maintained by the Department.

Replies shall be filed by the aforesaid officers within four weeks with a copy

to the counsel for the petitioner.

20. This order shall be brought to the notice of the Vice Chairman,

DDA, who shall order a departmental enquiry to be held in the matter, so as

to identify and nail down the delinquent officers down the line, who have

slept over the case of the petitioner from the year 1999 onwards till date

and for appropriate action to be taken against them. The enquiry shall be

completed within eight weeks from today and the report thereof shall be

placed on record along with an affidavit of the Vice Chairman, DDA. In the

affidavit to be filed by the Vice Chairman, DDA, it shall also be stated as to

how the subject flat allotted to the petitioner at Vasant Kunj came to be

allotted to another party in the year 2002 while parleys were going on all

along between the respondent/DDA and petitioner in respect of the same

flat, for which she had paid every penny as demanded from her by the DDA,

much before the cut-off date. The affidavit shall also confirm recoveries of

costs from the defaulting officers.

21. While allowing the present petition on the aforesaid lines, it is made

clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek damages from the

respondent/DDA as prayed for in prayer (ii) of the petition, by instituting a

civil suit for the said relief as may be permissible in law.

List on 7th August, 2012, for perusal of the affidavit of the Vice

Chairman, DDA and for replies by the officers of the respondent/DDA, as

mentioned above.

                                                               (HIMA KOHLI)
MAY 8, 2012                                                       JUDGE
rkb/‟anb'