Delhi High Court
Krishna vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 25 September, 2013
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6111/2013
KRISHNA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sagar Dawar, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. with
Ms. Ritagya Riti, Adv. for R-1/DDA.
Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocate for R-2 to
R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
ORDER
% 25.09.2013
1. The Petitioner migrated to Delhi from Punjab during the time when
Punjab was disturbed on account of terrorist activities. The Petitioner and
other migrants from Punjab were housed at Peera Garhi Relief Camp. On
recommendation of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), a
scheme was introduced for allotment of residential flats by the DDA to
the migrants from Punjab.
2. On 30.06.2003, the Petitioner got herself registered under the scheme and
submitted an application bearing No.2264 along with registration money
of `10,000/- by way of a demand draft.
3. In the draw of lots held on 20.08.2008, the Petitioner was declared
successful and by a demand letter bearing No.71513, vide file
No.A/307(64)2009/HSRPM/BI, the Petitioner was asked to deposit the
balance amount of `1,68,945/-. This amount was deposited by the
Petitioner by challan No.85182 dated 26.03.2009. The Petitioner further
deposited a sum of `7,045/- towards the transfer duty and stamp duty on
27.03.2009. The Petitioner alleges that the matter of handing over of the
possession of the flat allotted to the Petitioner has been kept in abeyance
in pursuance of a letter dated 30.03.2009 written by the SDM, Punjabi
Bagh complaining that there were some cases of multiple allotments and,
therefore, proper verification of the documents was required to be done
before handing over possession to the allottee by the DDA. The letter
dated 30.03.2009 is extracted hereunder:-
"It has been brought to my notice that serious malpractices have
been alleged in the above mentioned allotment dated 20.8.2008. It
is informed that original allottees are not presently in possession
of the NOCs issued from this office and the individuals applying
for physical possessions are not original allottees but middlemen
and dealers. This defeats the very purpose of this scheme as the
benefit does not reach the individuals for which it is meant.
In light of the above, it is suggested that before handing over the
physical possession to all the above mentioned allottees, they
should be directed to approach the office of the undersigned for
proper verification of their documents/claims. Physical possession
should not be given in any of the above cases without such
verification.
Further, it is requested that all the names and addresses of the
successful allottees for the above mentioned draw may kindly be
sent to the undersigned for proper re-verification."
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that although she has deposited the
entire price more than four years ago, yet Respondent No.1 DDA has
failed to handover the possession of the flat allotted to her. A period of
four years could not have been taken by the SDM or any other authority
to verify the documents and to separate the grain from the chaff. It is
averred that inaction on the part of Respondent No.1 (DDA) and
Respondents No.2 to 4 has put the Petitioner to unnecessary harassment
and the Petitioner is left shelterless.
5. It is further stated that a similar matter came up before this Court in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.4567/2011 titled „Sunita v. DDA & Ors.‟ whereby by
an order dated 08.01.2013, this Court held that investigation of a criminal
case registered in the year 2006 on the issue of alleged
irregularities/illegalities in allotment could not have taken such a long
time for verification of the documents by the SDM. It was also observed
that the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) could hardly investigate the
irregularities of the allotment in pursuance of the draw of lots held in the
year 2008 and the FIR registered in the year 2006. In the circumstances,
the DDA was directed to allot the flat to the Petitioner within a period of
six weeks.
6. Relying on the orders passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4567/2011 titled
„Sunita v. DDA & Ors.‟ a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)
4623/2013 titled „Ramesh Kumar v. DDA & Ors.‟ disposed of the writ
petition with the following directions:-
"Keeping in view the aforesaid orders as well as the fact that the
allotment of flats to petitioners and investigation has been pending
for the last nearly seven years, this Court is of the view that SDM
should verify the documents filed by the petitioners within a period
of twelve weeks and furnish his report to the DDA. The DDA in
turn, is directed to process the papers within a period of eight
weeks thereafter. It is made clear that in the event the SDM does
not furnish his report within the aforesaid stipulated period, the
DDA would independently process the documents and take a
decision in accordance with law. Needless to say, petitioners
would cooperate with the SDM as well as the DDA."
7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also disposed of with the
direction to the SDM (West) Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (Respondent
No.3) to verify the documents filed by the Petitioner within a period of
twelve weeks and furnish the report to the DDA and the DDA in turn
shall process the Petitioner's case for delivery of possession within eight
weeks thereafter.
8. It is made clear that in the event of SDM not furnishing his report within
the stipulated period, the DDA shall independently process the documents
and take a decision in accordance with law within eight weeks (after the
expiry of period of twelve weeks granted to the SDM).
9. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the SDM and the DDA in processing
her case.
10. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above directions.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 25, 2013
vk
