Ashok Joshi vs Dda
2015 Latest Caselaw 7062 Del

$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 507/2011
  ASHOK JOSHI                            ..... Petitioner
                      Through      Mr.R.K.Saini with Mr.Atul Guglani,
                                   Advocates.

                      versus

  DDA                                    ..... Respondent
                      Through      Mr.Srinivas Vijaykumar with Mr.S.C.Jha,
                                   Advocates.

  %                                Date of Decision : 17th September, 2015
  CORAM:
  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                                JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties state that the W.P.(C) No.345/2011 is to be de-tagged from the present writ petition. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.345/2011 is de-tagged and directed to be listed in the category of "Regular" according to its seniority.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondent/DDA in not issuing the allotment- cum-demand letter of LIG Flat allotted to the petitioner more than 8 years ago.

3. The respondent/DDA in its counter-affidavit had stated that the allotment-cum-demand letter could not be issued to the petitioner as his

process of verification and genuineness could not be completed. It was a case of the respondent/DDA that the petitioner had failed to submit documentary evidence.

4. This Court on 16th September, 2013, had directed the petitioner to appear before the Director (Vigilance), DDA and had also directed the Director (Vigilance) to verify the genuineness of the petitioner and submit his report to the Court.

5. By way of affidavit dated 30th May, 2014, the report of the Director (Vigilance), DDA has been placed on record. The finding of the Director (Vigilance) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

" Findings:-

In view of above, it is clear that the petitioner is the same applicant who made the application no.189198 for flat in 1979 though his signatures does not tally at all and perhaps wrong information regarding occupation was given while making the application for allotment of flat."

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/DDA states that the DDA has accepted the report of the Director (Vigilance), DDA.

7. Consequently, respondent/DDA is directed to issue the allotment- cum-demand letter in petitioner's favour within a period of six weeks in accordance with DDA costing policy as prevalent on the date of draw in the year 2007.

With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition is disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 KA