Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 79 (DEL)

G. AKASH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

1999-01-29

B.K.RAMAMOORTHY, DEVENDER GUPTA

body1999
K. Ramamoorthy ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner has challenged the cancellation of allotment of Flat No. 120 SFS, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-1, New Delhi, by order dated 27. 3. 1985 and the allotment of flat subsequently in 1989 to the third respondent, Shri B. N. Thapar. The facts culminating in the filing of the writ petition can be stated in the following terms: ( 2 ). The father of the petitioner, Professor Mr. Late G. Balakrishna Rao was employed as a Professor in the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. Pursuant to the advertisement by the DDA, the father of the petitioner applied for a membership in the scheme announced by the resondent, DDA, properly known as Self Financing Scheme, hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the scheme. Certificate of Registration No. 1525 was issued by the first respondent on the 9th of January, 1979 in lieu of the acknowledgement to the deposit of Rs. 10,000. 00 by the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner was given the allotment letter and the same reads as under: "sub: Allocation of flat in Category II under Self-Financing Scheme, Sheikh Sarai, Resdl. Scheme. Dear Sir, With reference to your application No. 4216 dated - on the above cited subject, I am directed to inform you that you have been declared successful for the allocation of a flat on first floor/type of Category 11 (A-3) in Sheikh Sarai, Residential Self Financing Scheme in the draw of lots held on 25. 3. 80. The allocation is subject to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968. 2. The estimated cost of the flat comes to Rs. 76,000. 00 which is subject to revision on the completion of flats. You are, therefore, requested to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,171. 00 (Rupees eight thousand one hundred and seventy one only) as per details below within one month from the date of issue of this letter failing which the allocation is liable to be cancelled: (i) Total estimated cost Rs. 76,000 of the flat (ii) Amount of 1st Rs. 19,000 Instalment/three Instalments. (iii) Amount already (-) Rs. 10,000 deposited vide Deposit Receipt No. 4323 dt. _____ (iv) Interest accrued (-) Rs. 829 on the above deposit upto the date of specific draw. Total (iii) + (iv) (-) Rs. 10,829 Instalment/three Instalments. 76,000 of the flat (ii) Amount of 1st Rs. 19,000 Instalment/three Instalments. (iii) Amount already (-) Rs. 10,000 deposited vide Deposit Receipt No. 4323 dt. _____ (iv) Interest accrued (-) Rs. 829 on the above deposit upto the date of specific draw. Total (iii) + (iv) (-) Rs. 10,829 Instalment/three Instalments. (v) Net amount payable Rs. 8,171 ( 3 ). On the 21st of May, 1980, demand letter was issued by the DDA. On the 19th of June, 1980, the father of the petitioner wrote to the DDA in the following terms: "with reference to the Demand Letter No. F10 149/80/1525/sfs dated 21. 5. 80 issued by the Deputy Director (H)I, I am enclosing herewith 4th copy of the Draft Receipt No. 31719 dated 31. 1. 79 along with the Deposit Receipt No. 4323 dated 18. 1. 79 for Rs. 10,000. 00. The Deposit Receipt is discharged by affixing a Revenue Stamp of paise 20 at its back and acknowledging receipt of the payment against it through adjustment account. My particulars are as under: (1) Name : G. B. Krishna Rao (2) Locality in : Sheikh Sarai which allocation is made (3) Category of Flat : II (4) Amount of Registration : Rs. 10,000. 00 Deposit shown in the Demand Letter (5) Amount of interest : Rs. 829. 00 shown in the Demand Letter (6) Date of Draw : 25. 3. 80 ( 4 ). On the 5th of November, 1980, the School of Planning and Architecture, the employer of the father of the petitioner, wrote to the father of the petitioner directing him to furnish certain documents for the purpose of considering his application for the grant of loan for the purchase of flat. On the 8th of January, 1981, the DDA wrote to the father of the petitioner in the following terms: "i am directed to refer to the Demand-cum-Allocation letter of even No. dated 21. 5. 80 on the above subject allocating to you a flat in Block/floor 1st Category A-3 at Sheikh Sarai Residential Scheme through draw of lots held on _________ and add to say that in accordance with the terms and condition of the same and keeping in view the progress of constructions of the flats at site, the IInd instalment amount as per details given below has become due. 1. Estimated cost of flat : Rs. 76,000 2. 1. Estimated cost of flat : Rs. 76,000 2. Amount of lind instalment : Rs. 15,200 (20% of the estimated cost of the flat) You are, therefore, requested to make the payment of Rs. 15. 200. 00 (Rupees fifteen thousand two hundred only) within one month from the date of issue of this letter failing which the allotment is likely to be cancelled and penalty for the same will be charged as per terms and conditions of the Demand-cum- Allocation Letter REFERRED TO to in para 1 above. " ( 5 ). For the purpose of getting loan from his employer, the father of the petitioner requested the DDA to permit him to mortgage the flat to his employer. By letter dated the 21st of January, 1981, the DDA stated, inter alia, that: "an assurance is hereby given that the DDA shall grant the mortgage permission after completion of the Hats in favour of School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. The title of the land on which the flat is being constructed vests with the DDA is free from all encumbrances. The assurance is granted subject to the condition to furnish copy of NOC under the Land Ceiling Act, 1976. " ( 6 ). On the 2nd of February, 1981, the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi too had granted a loan of Rs. 60,000. 00 to the father of the petitioner. ( 7 ). On the 2nd of February, 1981, a tripartite agreement (Annexure P-17) was executed between the father of the petitioner, the DDA and the employer of the father of the petitioner. Clause 6 of the tripartite agreement reads as under: "this AGREEMENT made this Second day of February One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty One between Professor G. B. Krishna Raoson of Lateg L Kantha Rao residing at E-71, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi at present serving as Professor of Planning hereinafter called the borrower (which expression shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the context be deemed to include his/her heirs, executors, administrators and legal representatives) of the first part, the Delhi Development Authority, a Statutory Body having its Office at the Director, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi hereinafter called the School of the Third Part. WHEREAS the borrower desires to purchase a ready built flat from the Authority under its Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the said scheme ) which envisages allotment of ready built flats after a period of 2 years and payment of the cost of construction in instalments as mentioned in the brochure of the said scheme. AND WHEREAS the borrower has under the provisions of the rules framed by the School to regulate the grant of advances to its employees for building houses,etc. , (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the said Rules including any modifications thereof) applied to the School for an advance of Rs. 60,000. 00 (Rupees sixty thousand) only to purchase a flat under the said scheme and the School has sanctioned an advance of Rs. 60,000. 00 to the Borrower vide School letter No F 11-8/80/spa/aands dated 2nd February,1981a copy of which is annexed to these presents for the purpose aforesaid on the terms and conditions set forth therein. In consideration of the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 (Rupees ten thousand only) already deposited by the Borrower as initial amount of registration deposit with the Authority under the said scheme for the purchase of a ready built flat and the sum of Rs. 60,000. 00 (Rupees sixty thousand only) to be paid by the School directly to the Authority on behalf of borrower, it is hereby agreed to by and between the parties hereto as follows: (1) On the receipt of an assurance from the Authority that the flat will be allotted to the School servant the borrower herein, the amount of House Building Advance permissible will be sanctioned to the borrower but the actual payment will be made to the Authority directly by the School as follows: (a) 25% of the tentative cost of dwelling unit (including the amount paid as registration deposit) within one month of the date of the demand letter after the allocation by draw of lots; and (b) 65% of the tentative Cost of dwelling unit in three instalments amounting to 20%, 25% and 20% respectively on demand at any time after three months of the date of the issue of demand letter after the allocation of draw of lots. (c) The final prices of the flat will be determined before taking possession of the flat and 10% of the balance of the amount will be paid at the time of taking possession. The amount in excess of the amount of H. B. A. permissible and sanctioned to the borrower will be paid by the borrower to the Authority directly so as to make the payment to the DDA in the manner as mentioned hereinbefore. In case there is any delay in payment of the instalment by the School or the borrower in either case it will be treated a default on the part of the borrower and borrower shall be liable to pay a penalty @ 12% p. a. on delayed payment. (2) The Authority will maintain a separate account for borrower and adjust the payment of advance received by it from the School against the cost of construction of a particular category of flat applied by him. (3) On completion of the flat, its possession will be handed over to the borrower forthwith along with the title thereto on lease hold right basis who will mortgage the flat within three months to the Director, School of Planning and Architecture as security for the said advance. He should also furnish all the necessary certificates for the purpose of registration. (4) The cost of the flat, if in excess of the amount of the House Building Advance sanctioned, will be borne and paid by the borrower. (5) The borrower is to repay to the School the said amount of Rs. 60,000. 00 (Rupees sixty thousand only) by fifty monthly instalments of Rs. l,200. 00 and interest calculated in accordance with paragraph 7 mentioned below by sixteen monthly instalments from his pay commencing from the month of September One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Two or from the month following obtaining of the possession of the flat whichever is earlier and the borrower hereby authorises the School to make such deductions from his monthly pay, leave salary and subsistence allowance bills. (6) If the borrower wants to withdraw from the scheme or fails to pay the balance amount representing the difference between the House Building Advance sanctioned by the School and the actual cost of the flat, or quits the service of the School or dies, theamount of the House Building Advance will be refunded forthwith to the School. (6) If the borrower wants to withdraw from the scheme or fails to pay the balance amount representing the difference between the House Building Advance sanctioned by the School and the actual cost of the flat, or quits the service of the School or dies, theamount of the House Building Advance will be refunded forthwith to the School. The amount of initial deposit of Rs. 10,000. 00 (Rupees ten thousand only) will be refunded to the borrower or his legal heirs, as the case may be, by the Authority after deducting such amount as may be payable by him as communicated in the brochure. Provided further that in the event the borrower quits the service of the School or dies, as the case may be, the terms of this Agreement as applicable to the Authority and the borrower shall be deemed to continue and shall always be deemed to have been continued irrespective of the fact that in relation to the School this agreement has come to an end. (7) The rate of interest of HBA for the first Rs. 25. 000. 00 is 6 1/2%, for the next 25,001 to 50,000. 00 is 8% and 50,001 to 70,000 is 10%. The Delhi Development Authority under the said scheme will pay to the School interest @ 7% p. a. for the period beyond 2 1/2 years till the flat is offered for possession. Any gain in interest in this way will accrue to the School. (8) The stamp duty if any payable on these presents shall be borne and paid by the School. " ( 8 ). On the 4th of February, 1981, there was an agreement between the father of the petitioner and his employer. On the 3rd of September, 1981, the DDA wrote to the father of the petitioner making a demand for Rs. 19,000. 00 being the third instalment of the payment of the estimated cost of Rs. 70,000. 00. On the 30th of September, 1981, the sum of Rs. 19,000. 00 was paid by the father of the petitioner. On the 25th of February, 1982, the DDA made a demand for Rs. 2,800. 00 towards the estimated cost of scooter garage being Rs. 4,000. 00 and that amount was paid on the 25th of March, 1982. 70,000. 00. On the 30th of September, 1981, the sum of Rs. 19,000. 00 was paid by the father of the petitioner. On the 25th of February, 1982, the DDA made a demand for Rs. 2,800. 00 towards the estimated cost of scooter garage being Rs. 4,000. 00 and that amount was paid on the 25th of March, 1982. On the 23rd of August, 1982, the DDA made a demand on the father of the petitioner for payment of Rs. 15,200. 00 being the 4th instalment. On the 17th of September, 1982, the sum of Rs. 16,000. 00 was paid towards 4th instalment of flat of Rs. 15. 200. 00 and Rs. 800. 00 towards the cost of scooter garage. ( 9 ). On the 9th of August, 1983, the DDA sent the following letter to the father of the petitioner. "with reference to the demand-cum-allocation letter of even No. dated 21. 5. 83 on the subject noted above allocating to you flat No. 120 under Cat-11 at Sheikh Sarai Residential Scheme through draw of lots held on 23. 5. 19083. 1 am to state that the construction of the flat is complete and in accordance with the terms and conditions of allocation/allotment, the payment of the 5th and final instalment as per details given below has become due: 1. Total estimated Rs. 1,14,000 cost of the flat 2. Amount already Rs. 68,400 demanded towards cost (excluding interest, if any) 3. Balance amount as Rs. 45,900 5th and final instalment of the flat. 4. Documental charge Rs. 45 5. Ground Rent for the Rs. 02 first two years @ Rs. l. 00 per year. 6. Service charges for Rs. 122. 50 first two years @ Rs. l. 00 per year. 7. Total amount Rs. 46,069. 50 payable. Rs. 46,069. 50 (Rs. forty six thousand sixty nine and paise fifty only) within one month from the date of issue of this letter, failing which the possession of the flat will not be handed over to you and action will be taken for cancellation of the flat. Any default in payment would entail the levy of penal interest @ 12% p. a. beyond the due date. Any default in payment would entail the levy of penal interest @ 12% p. a. beyond the due date. In case you have not made the payment of instalments earlier demanded and the amount so due from you up till now you are also requested to pay the same along with the interest within the prescribed period. The possession of the flat will be given only on receipt of payment in full and on production of the documents mentioned below: 1. Affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2. 00 duly attested by Magistrate/sub-Judge/notary Public. Notarial stamp of Rs. 3. 00 should be fixed on the affidavit, if it is got attested by the Notary Public. 2. Proof in respect of the deposit of 4th copy of challan/cash receipt relating to the registration deposit given by this office and also the FDR issued to you with an endorsement thereon "received PAYMENT on a revenue stamp of 20 paise on the back of the deposit receipt, if not already surrendered. Please note that the possession letter will be issued to you personally and in case on account of some reason you are not able to take over the possession, the possession can be handed over to your Special Power of Attorney, which should be duly attested from the Magistrate on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2. 00. In order to remove the hardship, it has been decided to hand over possession of the flat to you before the execution and registration of conveyance deed provided in the DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1968 provided you submit an undertaking (specimen enclosed) on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2. 00 duly attested by a Magistrate/sub-Judge/ Notary Public, extra notarial stamp worth Rs. 3. 00 may be affixed on the undertaking. The property is being offered on as IS WHERE IS basis. The DDA will not entertain any request for addition and alteration or any complaint whatsoever regarding property circumstances as defined in para 19 of the Regulations or about the design, quality of material used workmanship or any other defect. Lease for land under the flat will commence w. e. f. 1. 8. 1983, you shall therefore, be liable to pay ground rent for the said land @ Rs. 1. 00 p. a. for the first two years w. e. f. 1. 8. Lease for land under the flat will commence w. e. f. 1. 8. 1983, you shall therefore, be liable to pay ground rent for the said land @ Rs. 1. 00 p. a. for the first two years w. e. f. 1. 8. 83 in advance (already included in the demand letter) and thereafter @ Rs. 122. 50 p. a. calculated @ 2 1/2/o of the premium of the land amounting to Rs. 4,900. 00 in respect of your flat. This rate is subject to revision after every 30 years. The amount will be payable in advance every year by the allottee and the demand letter will be issued by the DDA. Interest @ 10% p. a. or such other rate as may be decided by the Authority from time to time shall be charged for the delay in payment of ground rent. The possession of the flat will be handed over to you at site by the office of the Executive Engineer concerned. It is mentioned herewith that you will have to pay service charges annually @ Rs. 122. 50 (Rupees one hundred twenty two and paise fifty only) till the services of the scheme are handed over to the MCD. " ( 10 ). There is no date as to when it was actually despatched by the DDA. ( 11 ). On the 15th of August, 1983, the father of the petitioner, G. Balakrishan Rao, died. ( 12 ). It is at this stage the position of the petitioner has to be recounted before we revert back to the subsequent correspondence between the mother of the petitioner and the DDA. ( 13 ). On the 7th of June, 1971, the father of the petitioner married the mother of the petitioner who was then called Susan George. She converted herself to be a Hindu and was named Sujata. On the 7th of May, 1972, the petitioner was born in the Holy Family Hospital, Green Park, New Delhi. The marital relationship between the parents did not continue and there was decree for divorce on the 14th of May, 1976 and the custody of the petitioner was with the father. Therefore, the position was that the petitioner was living with the father without any maternal care from the mother, Sujata. At the time of the death of the father of the petitioner in 1983, the petitioner was 11 years old. Therefore, the position was that the petitioner was living with the father without any maternal care from the mother, Sujata. At the time of the death of the father of the petitioner in 1983, the petitioner was 11 years old. The mother took some interest in the petitioner and she contacted the DDA. ( 14 ). On the 3rd of December, 1983, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the DDA requesting it to give details about the balance due and also requested for forms and documents to be executed for the completion of the formalities. There was no reply from the DDA. On the 3rd of February, 1984, the mother, on behalf of the petitioner, wrote, through Counsel, following letter to the DDA: "i act on behalf of my aforesaid client and under his instructions and on his behalf I have to address you in the following circumstances: 1. That on or about 3rd December, 1983,1 wrote to you vide copy of the letter enclosed advising you that Shri G. V. Krishna Rao, the allottee of House No. 120 under Category-11 of Sheikh Sarai Residential Scheme had since expired and that my aforesaid client is the only legal heir who is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. That my client as such is entitled in law to the allotment of the said house in his name subject to, of course, any payment which remained to be paid for the house. 2. That I had also requested you to advise me the balance amount to be paid and also requested you to let me have the necessary and requisite forms and documents which need to be executed before the formalities are completed. 3. That although more than 2 months have passed, I have not heard anything from you and in these circumstances I am advisedly issuing this reminder to request you to kindly expedite the matter urgently. 4. I am enclosing a copy of my earlier communication dated 3rd December, 1983 which was delivered in your office in person. An early action is solicited" ( 15 ). It was sent by registered post. But there was no reply. 4. I am enclosing a copy of my earlier communication dated 3rd December, 1983 which was delivered in your office in person. An early action is solicited" ( 15 ). It was sent by registered post. But there was no reply. On the 20th of February, 1984, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the Director, School of Planning and Architecture requesting for the details about the payments that the petitioner would be entitled to receive on the death of the father of the petitioner. The mother in this letter would admit the receipt of the letter dated the 9th of August, 1983 after the death of the father of the petitioner, wherein the DDA had demanded the sum of Rs. 46,069. 50. ( 16 ). On the 11th of April, 1984, the employer of the father of the petitioner, the School of Planning and Architecture, I. P. Estate, New Delhi, directed the mother of the petitioner to get herself appointed as legal guardian of the petitioner and produce a certificate to that effect. ( 17 ). On the 22nd of May, 1984, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the DDA stating that the letter dated the 9th of August, 1983 was received on the 16th of August, 1983, that is, the next day after the death of the father of the petitioner. She had also stated in the letter that she was taking steps to get the funds from the employer of the father of the petitioner and she had already made an application for the grant of succession certificate and the Court had fixed the case for final hearing on the 22nd of May, 1984 and she wanted time to make the deposit. She had added a note that the learned Administrative Sub-Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi had adjourned the case to the 28th of November, 1984, that is, nearly after an interval of six months. On the 17th of November, 1984, the DDA called upon the mother of the petitioner to intimate the latest position of the case regarding the grant of succession certificate for further action in the matter. On the 13th of March, 1985, the DDA wrote to the petitioner s mother in the following terms: "please refer to this office letter of even number dated 9. 8. 83 wherein Shri G. B. Krishna Rao was requested to make the payment of Rs. 46,069. On the 13th of March, 1985, the DDA wrote to the petitioner s mother in the following terms: "please refer to this office letter of even number dated 9. 8. 83 wherein Shri G. B. Krishna Rao was requested to make the payment of Rs. 46,069. 50 paise (Rupees forty six thousand sixty nine and paise fifty only) on account of 5th and final payment of the flat No. 120, Category II, Sheikh Sarai within one month. The said payment has not been received so far although a period of 1 1/2 years have passed. You are given the final opportunity to deposit the same with interest within a period of 15 days, failing which the office will be forced to take action for the cancellation of the said flat. In that event, the interest and cancellation charges etc. will be deducted from the deposits made by late Shri G. B. Krishna Rao and balance will be refunded after meeting the claims of School of Planning and Architecture to the person in whose favour the Court will issue the succession certificate. Further in order to finalise the transfer action, you are once again requested to submit the succession certificate and the enclosed documents duly executed and attested on behalf of the minor. " ( 18 ). On the 23rd of March, 1985, the mother of the petitioner had given an undertaking in writing and also an indemnity bond, and also an affidavit, as required by the DDA. On the 29th of April, 1985, the DDA wrote to the mother of the petitioner in the following terms: "with reference to your letter dated 25. 3. 1985 received from your natural guardian, I am directed to inform you that the documents received along with this letter are not in order. These are to be executed by your natural guardian for and on behalf of your i. e. the minor son and not for self. You are therefore requested to submit the correct documents duly executed and attested for and on behalf of minor son only. You are once again requested to make the payment of the fifth and final instalment along with the interest within 15 days from the issue of this letter. This may kindly be treated as final opportunity and if the payment is not received, thus the allotment will be cancelled. You are once again requested to make the payment of the fifth and final instalment along with the interest within 15 days from the issue of this letter. This may kindly be treated as final opportunity and if the payment is not received, thus the allotment will be cancelled. In case of cancellation, you will be liable to make the payment of cancellation charges, interest, etc. and therefore the claim of the School of Planning and Architecture will be met. The balance if remained unrecoverable, the same will be recovered as arrears of land revenue. " ( 19 ). On the 23rd of July, 1985, the DDA issued the following letter cancelling the allotment: "reference your claim for transfer of allotment made in favour of Shri G. B. Krishna Rao, I am to inform you that you have neither filed succession certificate nor made the payments due on the flat in question under the Tripartite Agreement executed between DDA and deceased allottee in the event of transfer of allotment, all sums paid by School of Planning and Architecture, I. P. Estate, New Delhi on behalf of allottee become returnable. We have given you sufficient time to discharge obligations. In view of your inability to meet the liabilities, allotment in favour of Shri G. B. Krishna Rao is being cancelled and money recovered from the School of Planning and Architecture being returned to them. Should you get succession certificate you can claim the balance amount held on behalf of DDA on deceased account. " ( 20 ). On the-27th of July, 1985, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the DDA requesting for revocation of the letter dated the 23rd of July, 1985 and also for time for depositing the amount after the succession certificate is granted. In October, 1985, notice under Section 53-B of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 was issued by the Counsel on behalf of the petitioner to the DDA. The same is as under: "under instructions from my client Master G. Akash son of late Shri G. Balakrishna Rao acting through his mother Smt. Sujata @ Susan George resident of Flat No. 452, Category II, SFS, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, I have to serve with the following notice: 1. That the father of my client - Professor G. Balakrishna Rao had applied for a flat under Self Financing Scheme and made the requisite deposit with you. 2. That the father of my client - Professor G. Balakrishna Rao had applied for a flat under Self Financing Scheme and made the requisite deposit with you. 2. That the father of my client was allotted flat No. 120, Category II, Sheikh Sarai Residential Scheme under Self Financing Scheme and had made the initial deposits. 3. That the father of my client was employed as Professor and Dean of Studies in the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. 4. That the father of my client had also made fixed deposit of Rs. 30,000. 00 for the purpose of deposit to you and with that view as and when the subsequent demands are made by you the amount is readily available with him. 5. That to the misfortune of my client his father died on 15th August, 1983 leaving behind my client as his only child. 6. That my client was born on 7th May, 1972 and is still a minor. 7. That my client has applied to you for the transfer of the flat from the name of his father to his name and has furnished all the necessary documents but no action was taken. 8. That since the parents of my client had divorced as such my client had no other person to look after him and he on account of his minority was under a disability and that disability still subsists. 9. That my client had applied to the employers of his father for handing over to him the deposits which were lying in the Almirah of my client s father but they were not supplying the same but instead hindrance was being created. 10. That my client thereafter applied for grant of succession certificate and the said matter is pending in the Court of Shri J. P. Sharma, Sub- Judge, First Class, Delhi and the next date is fixed as 12th December, 1985. 11. That the Court of the Sub-Judge had issued a notice on 13. 3. 1985 for publication in the daily newspaper Hindustan Times but the said newspaper did not publish the same and thereafter the Court sent another notice which has been published in Hindustan Times of 2. 10. 1985. 12. 11. That the Court of the Sub-Judge had issued a notice on 13. 3. 1985 for publication in the daily newspaper Hindustan Times but the said newspaper did not publish the same and thereafter the Court sent another notice which has been published in Hindustan Times of 2. 10. 1985. 12. That my client on account of non-release of the fixed deposits and on account of the proceedings being taken in the Court for grant of succession certificate was not in a position to make the deposit of the demand made by the DDA. 13. That my client has been apprising the DDA from time to time of the stage of the proceedings before the Court but still he was surprised to received a notice that the allotment was being cancelled on account of non-payment of the balance amount. 14. That the act of the Delhi Development Authority is contrary to law and opposed to the principles of natural justice. My client being a minor no orders could be passed to his prejudice without his rights being protected. 15. That the DDA had itself issued an advertisement in the Hindustan Times of 23. 8. 1985 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the belated payments made in respect of the price under the self financing scheme shall be liable to interest and there is no question of their being cancellation of the allotment. 16. That even otherwise my client being a minor no order could be passed against him without the permission of the District Judge as the minority is a disability beyond the control of the individual. 17. That the act of the DDA being contrary to law my client is within his rights to bring in the appropriate action restraining the Authority from cancelling his allotment or in any way prejudicing the rights to the allotment of the flat. 18. That my client is always. willing and will pay the entire amount as soon as the succession certificate is granted and the same is released in his favour by the Court. 18. That my client is always. willing and will pay the entire amount as soon as the succession certificate is granted and the same is released in his favour by the Court. I have, therefore, instructions to callupon you through this notice that you will please arrange not to take any action in cancelling the allotment of flat No. 120, Category II, Sheikh Sarai, Self Financing Residential Scheme and in case any action in that behalf is taken my client will be within his rights to bring in appropriate legal action against the Authority. I have further instructions to call upon you through this notice that you may not take any action either allotting or otherwise hand over the possession of the flat to any other person to the prejudice of my client. Please take notice accordingly. A copy of this notice has been kept in my office for record and further necessary action. " ( 21 ). On the 10th of October, 1985, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the DDA in the following terms: "the petitioner respectfully beg to submit as under: (1) That the father of the petitioner Professor G. Balakrishna Rao had applied for allotment of a flat under the self financing scheme and made the requisite deposits with the Delhi Development Authority as was required from time to time. (2) That the petitioner is a minor son of the said Professor Shri G. B. Krishna Rao and was born on 7th May, 1972. (3) That to the misfortune of the petitioner the father of the petitioner died on 15th August, 1983 and the petitioner was left alone as the parents of the petitioner had already separated. It was the kindness of the mother of the petitioner who though separated from the father of the petitioner came to the rescue of the petitioner. (4) That the father of the petitioner was employed as Professor and Dean of Studies in the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. (5) That since the father of the petitioner was separated from the mother of the petitioner he had kept all his assets in his office Almirah and at the time of his death and even thereafter the petitioner had no knowledge as to the items he left. (5) That since the father of the petitioner was separated from the mother of the petitioner he had kept all his assets in his office Almirah and at the time of his death and even thereafter the petitioner had no knowledge as to the items he left. The petitioner had only the knowledge that the father of the petitioner had kept a fixed deposit receipt for the purpose of making payment towards the cost of the first bearing No. 120 Category II, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi and the said fixed deposit was in the sum of Rs. 30,000. 00. (6) That the petitioner had been corresponding with the employer of his father (The Director of School of Planning and Architecture, Inderprastha Estate, New Delhi) and the said school was not cooperating and were not imparting any information to the petitioner as to the contents of the assets of his father lying in the office and also the amount which was payable to the father of the petitioner on account of his service with the said School. (7) That the petitioner finding it difficult to get the information filed on application before the District Judge, Delhi for the grant of succession certificate for the estate of the deceased. Professor G. Balakrishna Rao. (8) That it was with the intervention of the Administrative Sub-Judge Shri J. P. Sharma, in whose Court the application for grant of succession certificate was pending, that the petitioner was furnished with the information of the "assets of his father and this was done only on 9. 1. 1985. A photostat copy of that reply is enclosed for perusal and is marked as Annexure A. (9) That the petitioner thereafter had to amend the application for grant of succession certificate and after having amended the same the Court directed that a notice may be published in the Hindustan Times and the notice was sent to the Hindustan Times for publication but the said newspaper failed to publish the same in spite of the fact that direction had been issued to the said newspaper as far back as on 13th March, 1985. (10) That the petitioner in this behalf is annexing herewith the entire copy of the proceedings sheets of the Court from 9. 4. 1984 to 9. 5. (10) That the petitioner in this behalf is annexing herewith the entire copy of the proceedings sheets of the Court from 9. 4. 1984 to 9. 5. 1985 which shows that in spite of the fact that a notice was sent for publication on 13th March, 1986 the same was not published. The Court thereafter sent the notice second time which has been published in Hindustan Times of 2nd October, 1985 and the said newspaper is also annexed hereto for information. (11) That the petitioner was surprised to know that the DDA threatened to cancel the allotment on the plea that he was not making the payment of the fifth and final instalment along with the interest there on. The petitioner has been bringing to the notice of th eauthorities that the petitioner was handicapped because the belongings of his late father were not being released and the petitioner was taking all the measures that are provided for but even then the petitioner has been informed that the allotment has been cancelled. (12) That the petitioner has all the money that has to be paid to the Delhi Development Authority but the impediment attached with the petitioner is his minority and the delay in the Court proceedings which are beyond the control and reach of the petitioner. The employers of the father of the petitioner who, after his death should have assisted the petitioner but instead started creating hindrance by not disclosing to the petitioner the assets of the father of the petitioner and also failed to hand over the FDR which was lying with them. The said FDR is lying with the employer of the father of the petitioner till date. (13) That the petitioner, as can be seen from the proceedings of the Court, has been agitating for the grant of succession certificate and has left no efforts in securing the money and depositing the same with the Delhi Development Authority. (14) That the petitioner s minority is also a handicap and so far as the petitioner is given to understand that during his minority his rights cannot be jeopardised in the manner as the DDA is trying to do. The rights of the petitioner cannot be taken away in the manner as is being done in the instate case. (14) That the petitioner s minority is also a handicap and so far as the petitioner is given to understand that during his minority his rights cannot be jeopardised in the manner as the DDA is trying to do. The rights of the petitioner cannot be taken away in the manner as is being done in the instate case. (15) That a friend of the petitioner has further brought to the notice of the petitioner on advertisement given by the DDA which appeared in the Hindustan Times of 23rd August, 1985 that the belated payments made in respect of theinstalments under the Self Financing Scheme can only be subjected to payment of interest as has been shown in the said advertisement. A photostat copy thereof is enclosed. This also shows that when there is a delay in the making payment of the last instalment as in the case of the petitioner the only liability that can be inflicted upon the petitioner is the liability to pay interest for the delayed payment but not to take away the right of the petitioners. (16) That the petitioner feels and fears that his rights are being taken away in an arbitrary and illlegal manner. The petitioner is bringing all these facts to the notice of your honour to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the peculiar circumstances to which the petitioner has been ubjected to on account of the death of his father. But for the death of his father the amount kept by the petitioner s father in Fixed Deposit would have been paid to the Delhi Development Authority. The petitioner has no Control over the Court procedure nor the petitioner can hasten it up. ( 17) That the petitioner with all the disabilities attached has been diligently and honestly making all efforts for the grant of succession certificate with a view to making the payment but his efforts have gone futile. It is, therefore, prayed that your honour may kindly look into the matter and direct that the allotment of the fact may not be cancelled and in case any cancellation order has been passed uie Mine may be withdrawn in view of the peculiar circumstances explained above. The petitioner, in view of the advertisement in Hindustan Times of 23. 6. 1985, would further pray that he may be given time to make the deposit with the DDA. The petitioner, in view of the advertisement in Hindustan Times of 23. 6. 1985, would further pray that he may be given time to make the deposit with the DDA. A photostat copy of the birth certificate of the petitioner is enclosed. " ( 22 ). On the 30th of September, 1988, the office of the Assistant Controller (Estate Duty), New Delhi issued the certificate and the same reads as under: ESTATE DUTY 1. Name of the deceased : G. Balakrishnarao 2. Date of death : 15. 3. 1983 3. GIRNo. : R-86/88-89 4. Whether the deceased : possessed any property in his individual capacity? 5. Whether the deceased : was a member of HUF governed by Mitakashra Marumakkattayam or Allyasgntane Law? 6. Name of the A. P. : Mrs. Sujata (Alias) Susan, 452 SFS DDA, Sheikh Sarai-I, Delhi. 7. Section and Sub- : 58 (1) Section under which assessment is made. ASSESSMENT ORDER Return filed on 4. 8. 88 declaring net P. V. at Rs. 1,43,277. 00 is accepted u/sec. 58 (1) of the Estate Duty Act. Net P. V. at : Rs. l,43,277. 00 Estate Duty on : Nil Rs. l,43,277. 00 Assessed. Issue necessary forms. (J. C. MALHOTRA) DATED : 30. 9. 1988 ADDL. AC. ED. , NEW DELHI GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ESTATE DUTY NEW DLEHI OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY CIRCLE, NEW DLEHI DATED 11th NOV. , 1988 Discharge certificate where no duty is payable (See Rule 26 (i) In the Estate of Late Sh. G. Bala Krishan Rao Official Reference Ex-R-86/88-89 It is hereby certified that there is no claim for Estate Duty under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 in respect of the property hereinafter described as passing on the death of late Shri G. Bala Kishan Rao of Delhi who died on 15. 8. 1983. These property herein before REFERRED TO to: 1. Fixed Deposit in Rs. 30,000 Syndicate Bank 2. Balance in Rs. 5,000 Syndicate Bank 3. Superannuation Fund (P. P.) Rs. 55,720 4. C. D. S. Rs. 222 5. Loan Salary Rs. 2,913 6. Salary Due Rs. 2,032 7. Insurance Rs. 80,000 8. Deposit with DDA Rs. 68,400 9. Gratuity Rs. 18,125 ( 23 ). The Estate Duty had clearly mentioned that there was no liability to pay any amount. ( 24 ). On the 30th of January, 1990, the learned Sub-Judge (1st Class), Delhi issued the succession certificate. Loan Salary Rs. 2,913 6. Salary Due Rs. 2,032 7. Insurance Rs. 80,000 8. Deposit with DDA Rs. 68,400 9. Gratuity Rs. 18,125 ( 23 ). The Estate Duty had clearly mentioned that there was no liability to pay any amount. ( 24 ). On the 30th of January, 1990, the learned Sub-Judge (1st Class), Delhi issued the succession certificate. The succession certificate reads as under: IN THE COURT OF MRS. KAMLESH SHABHARWAL, SUB-JUDGE, 1st CLASS, DELHI. IN Case No. 237 of 1984 Master G. Akash son of late Shri G. Balakrishna Rao, acting through his natural mother Mrs. Sujata, Resident of Qr. No. 452, SFS, DDA Flats, Sheikh Sarai, Phase I, New Delhi. IN THE GOODS OF LATE SHRI D. BALAKRISHNA RAO DECEASED: Whereas you applied on 9th day of April, 1984 for a certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of the following debts and securities, namely: Fixed Deposits with Syndicate Bank, I. P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Amounts lying with School of Planning and Architecture, I. P. Estate, New Delhi, respondent No. 2. (a) Provident Fund 55,720. 00 (b) Compulsory Deposit 1,156. 00 (c) Gratuity 18,125. 00 (d) Salary from 1. 8. 83 to 2,032. 85 15. 8. 1983 (e) Leave Salary 2,913. 35 LIABILITIES: Amounts payable to School of Planning and Architecture, I. P. Estate, New Delhi, respondent No. 2. (a) Balance of outstanding 42,320. 00 : House Building Advance : (b) Interest on the House 10,250. 00: 54,200. 99 Building Advance upto : 30. 9. 1984 : (c) Library books out- 1,765. 80: standing against : the deceased This succession certificate is accordingly granted to you and empowers you to receive the above said debts and securities with interest thereon. However, the share of the minor petitioner shall be deposited in fixed deposit scheme by the guardian Smt. Sujata @ Sussan George in fixed deposit scheme and the minor can withdraw the same only after attaining the age of majority. sd/- Delhi dated 30th (KAMLESH SABHARWAL) day of Jan. 1990 SUB JUDGE, 1st CLASS,delhi ( 25 ). On the 20th of April, 1990, the mother of the petitioner paid the sum of Rs. 46,069. 50 to the DDA. sd/- Delhi dated 30th (KAMLESH SABHARWAL) day of Jan. 1990 SUB JUDGE, 1st CLASS,delhi ( 25 ). On the 20th of April, 1990, the mother of the petitioner paid the sum of Rs. 46,069. 50 to the DDA. On the 23rd of April, 1990, the mother of the petitioner wrote to the DDA and the same is as under: "kindly refer to your letter No. F. 10 (149)/1525/80/sfs II dated the 9th August, 1983 and my applications dated 20. 2. 1984 and 25. 3. 1985 and your office letters dated 29. 4. 85 and 23. 7. 85 on the above subject. 2. That your letter dated 9th August, 1983 issued in the name of Shri G. B. Krishna Rao was delivered after the death of Shri G. B. Krishna Rao who had died on 15. 8. 1983. 3. That a photostat copy of the death certificate relating to the death of Shri G. B. Krishna Rao, the allottee is again enclosed. 4. That the applicant was born on 7. 5. 1972. A photostat copy of the birth certificate is also enclosed to that effect. 5. That at the time of the death of Shri G. B. Krishna Rao, the applicant was a minor and the applicant still continues to be a minor as is clear from the birth certificate annexed hereto. 6. That in your letter dated 23. 7. 1985 it was mentioned that I have not produced or filed the succession certificate nor made the payments due on the flat. 7. That in this behalf it may be submitted that an application for grant of succession certificate was made to the Administrative Sub-Judge as far back as on 16. 3. 1984 and the same was registered by the Sub Judge, First Class on 9. 4. 1984. 8. That the Succession Certificate case was registered as 237 of 1984 and the Succession Certificate was issued on 30. 1. 1990. A photostat copy of the Succession Certificate is also enclosed. 9. That the assets of the deceased Shri G. B. Krishna Rao were locked up in the bank deposits and also the amounts payable by the employers of the deceased (School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi) and none of the amounts could be made available to the applicant right till the 20th April, 1990. 9. That the assets of the deceased Shri G. B. Krishna Rao were locked up in the bank deposits and also the amounts payable by the employers of the deceased (School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi) and none of the amounts could be made available to the applicant right till the 20th April, 1990. The applicant in this behalf is enclosing the certificates of the bankers that the amount was released only on 109 20. 4. 1990 after the issuance of the Succession Certificate dated 30. 1. 1990. 10. That the applicant had taken no time in making the deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 46,069. 50 paise as have been claimed in your letter No. F. 10 (149)/1425/80/sps II dated 9. 8. 1983, a photostat copy whereof is also enclsoed. 11. That the applicant is enclosing the triplicate challan copy bearing No. 28700 dated 20. 4. 1990 showing that the amount as indicated in your letter dated 9. 8. 1983 has been deposited. 12. That it will not be out of place to point out that the applicant on account of his minority was not in a position to arrange any funds except the funds which were available and due to his father at the time of his death and those funds were only released after the grant of the Succession Certificate. 13. That the Succession Certificate having been granted on 30. 1. 1990 and the applicant being still aminor, no order adverse to the applicant can be passed during his minority. 14. That the applicant had taken all the measures that were available under the law and have applied well in time for the grant of the Succession Certificate and the moment the Succession certificate was granted, applied to the banks concerned where the amounts were lying in deposit for the release of the amounts and also to the employers of the father of the applicant (School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi) for release of the amounts lying to his credit and immediately when the amount was released on 20. 4. 1990, the same was paid to the Delhi Development Authority towards the balance of the cost as is evident from the copy of the challan annexed hereto. 15. That the applicant having paid whole of the cost is entitled to the delivery of the possession of the flat immediately. 16. 4. 1990, the same was paid to the Delhi Development Authority towards the balance of the cost as is evident from the copy of the challan annexed hereto. 15. That the applicant having paid whole of the cost is entitled to the delivery of the possession of the flat immediately. 16. That the applicant has no objection to pay any other amount that may be due to the Delhi Development Authority towards the cost of the flat allotted or otherwise in connection therewith and the same shall be deposited as soon as the same is indicated. 17. That the applicant has been placed in a very precarious condition on account of the death of his father and the applicant has done all that was available at his command and had also applied to the Delhi Development Authority well in time for being substituted. 18. That the issuance of the Succession Certificate and the release of the amount at the credit of the deceased Shri G. B. Krishna Rao were beyond the power and control of the applicant and the Courts had taken their own time in issuing the Certificate of Succession. It is, therefore, prayed that your honour be kind enough to direct that the possession of the flat may be delivered to the applicant at the earliest. The applicant undertakes to file such documents as may become necessary to be executed by the applicant in connection with the transfer of the allotment in his name. " ( 26 ). On the 30th of May, 1990, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. The letter reads as under: "with reference to your letter dated 23. 4. 90 on the subject noted above, I am directed to inform you that flat in question has been cancelled as informed vide this office letter of even No. dated 23. 7. 85 the sum of of Rs. 53,000. 00 was refunded to the Deputy Registrar, School of Planning and Architect, New Delhi after giving you sufficient time to discharge obligations. Hence, your request at this stage cannot be entertained. " ( 27 ). On the 23rd of August, 1990, the mother of the petitioner again wrote to the DDA to re-consider the matter. She again wrote on the 20th of November, 1990 to the DDA. Hence, your request at this stage cannot be entertained. " ( 27 ). On the 23rd of August, 1990, the mother of the petitioner again wrote to the DDA to re-consider the matter. She again wrote on the 20th of November, 1990 to the DDA. On the 1st of January, 1991, the following letter was sent: "kindly refer to your letter No. F. 10 (149) 80/sfs dated 30th May, 1990. I am surprised to know that you had cancelled the allotment of the aforesaid flat and have refunded a sum of Rs. 53,000. 00 to the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. 2. That it is an admitted fact on the record of your office that late Shri G. B. Krishna Rao died on 15th August, 1983 and the applicant was born on 7th May, 1972. The applicant was minor at the time of the death of his father, late Shri G. B. Krishna Rao. 3. That the fact that the money belonging to my father late Shri G. B. Krishna Rao was lying in deposit and for the realisation of the said money, a succession certificate was absolutely necessary. 4. That an application for grant of the succession certificate was filed before the Administrative Sub-Judge as far back as on 16th March, 1984 and the same was registered on 9th April, 1984 and the amount in pursuance thereof was released partly on 20th April, 1990 and immediately thereafter the balance amount as demanded in your letter dated 9th August, 1983 was deposited. 5. That it is a surprising fact that it being on the record that I was a minor and as such no order adverse to me could have been passed. The grant of succession certificate is a matter before the authorities of the State and appropriate measures had been taken well in time for the grant of the succession certificate. The time spent in obtaining the succession certificate in no way can be taken against the applicant. 6. That the applicant being a minor, no order adverse to him could have been passed nor his rights could be taken away arbitrarily and that too by a State. In fact it is the State who has to take care of the destitute but in the instant case it is happening other way round. 7. 6. That the applicant being a minor, no order adverse to him could have been passed nor his rights could be taken away arbitrarily and that too by a State. In fact it is the State who has to take care of the destitute but in the instant case it is happening other way round. 7. That the Delhi Development Authority from time and again had been issuing press notes that in the event of the delayed payments interest could be charged. At worst I can be made liable to pay interest but my rights to the allotment could not be taken away. 8. That till date I have not been informed as to on which date an order for cancellation of the allotment had been made nor I have been served with any copy of the order. 9. That the letter dated 23rd July, 1985 in no way tantamounts to cancellation of the allotment and that too during the minority of the applicant. 10. That the applicant is further surprised to notice that out of the amount deposited by late Shri G. B. Krishna Rao, a sum of Rs. 53,000. 00 has been paid to the School of Planning and Architecture. This is a peculiar thing that has happened in this case. The amount was deposited by the deceased Shri G. B. Krishna Rao and it is not understood as under what provisions and under what circumstances a sum of Rs. 53,000. 00 has been paid to the School of Planning and Architecture and that too without notice to the applicant. 11. That the applicant alone being the heir of the deceased and suffering with the disability of minority, no order adverse to his interest could have been passed in the manner as is being contended. 12. It is, therefore, submitted that if any order has been passed not keeping in view the minority of the applicant, the same may kindly be revoked and the whole of the amount already stands credited. It is also requested to please supply me a certified copy of the order purporting to have been passed cancelling the allotment with its date. It is also requested that the circumstances under which a sum of Rs. 53,000. It is also requested to please supply me a certified copy of the order purporting to have been passed cancelling the allotment with its date. It is also requested that the circumstances under which a sum of Rs. 53,000. 00 has been paid to the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi and the date on which the said amount was paid to said School may also be communicated. 13. That there appears to be some mistake in the office in not keeping in view the minority of the applicant and the orders have been passed in a manner warranted by law. 14. It is, therefore, prayed that the allotment may be restored and the possession handed over to the applicant as the whole of the amount has already been deposited. " ( 28 ). The petitioner had REFERRED TO to the return of the sum of Rs. 52,000. 00 by the employer of the father of the petitioner. On the 4th of February, 1991, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 53,000. 00 with the DDA. On the same date, the petitioner s mother wrote to the DDA about the payment of Rs. 53,000. 00. ( 29 ). On the 12th of January, 1991, the petitioner had executed a power of attorney in favour of his mother. ( 30 ). The petitioner attained majority on the 6th of May, 1990 as he was born on the 7th of May, 1972. This writ petition was presented on the 5th of May, 1991. On the 6th of May, 1991, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order: CW 7493/92 Notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 22nd August, 1991. CM 2387/91 Notice for 22nd August, 1991. Meanwhile, there will be stay of the operation of the order communicated to the petitioner by the respondent by its letter dated 30. 5. 1990 (Annexure P-64 to the writ petition) till the next date. Flat No. 120, Category II, SFS, Sheikh Sarai, Phase I, shall not be allotted to any other person and status quo shall strictly be maintained. Dasti. " ( 31 ). In the counter-affidavit, the DDA had mentioned that in 1989 the same flat had been allotted to the third respondent, and therefore, the third respondent is a necessary party. Subsequently, the third respondent was impleaded. Dasti. " ( 31 ). In the counter-affidavit, the DDA had mentioned that in 1989 the same flat had been allotted to the third respondent, and therefore, the third respondent is a necessary party. Subsequently, the third respondent was impleaded. The petitioner filed the application to implead the third respondent as a party and that is why the third respondent has come into the picture. ( 32 ). The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that what was done during the minority of the petitioner would not be binding on the petitioner and the allotment alleged to have been made to the third respondent in 1989 cannot be projected against the petitioner because whatever that was done by the DDA during the minority of the petitioner would be violative at his instance, and within the three years after the petitioner attaining majority, he had instituted this writ petition and after attaining majority the petitioner had deposited the amount and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for, which had been mentioned earlier. ( 33 ). The learned Counsel for the DDA, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner after the death of the father of the petitioner to pay the money due. When the request was not complied with, the DDA had cancelled the allotment and DDA had exercised its powers as per the terms of the tripartite agreement which is binding on the petitioner. The DDA later on, after following the procedure prescribed, made the allotment to the third respondent. ( 34 ). The third respondent took the same stand that was taken by the first respondent and sought to sustain the allotment. Under the general principles of contract if one of the parties to transaction dies, the right under the contract could be exercised by the successor. If that successor is a minor on the death of the party, the right under the contract could be enforced after the minor attains majority. The same principle is recognised and it has been given statutory effect under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963. If that successor is a minor on the death of the party, the right under the contract could be enforced after the minor attains majority. The same principle is recognised and it has been given statutory effect under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the instant case, the petitioner, through his mother, had applied for succession certificate on the 9th of April, 1984 and that was granted on the 30th of January, 1990 and immediately thereafter realising the money due to the estate of the deceased, the petitioner had made the payment to the DDA. The petitioner does not have his case on the payment made by him after attaining majority but what he would state is that because of his disability (being a minor) he could not do anything and the delay in obtaining the estate duty clearance certificate and the succession certificate was beyond his control and the moment things were cleared, the petitioner had done what was required to be done. What is submitted on behalf of the petitioner has considerable force. Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under: LEGAL disability- (1) Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insance, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefor in the third column of the Schedule. (2) Where such person is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, affected by two such disabilities, or where, before his disability has ceased, he is affected by another disability, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after both disabilities have ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified. (3) Where the disability continues up to the death of that person, his legal representative may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the death, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified. (3) Where the disability continues up to the death of that person, his legal representative may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the death, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified. (4) Where the legal representative REFERRED TO to in Sub-section (3) is, at the date of the death of the person whom he represents, affected by any such disability, the rules contained in Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply. (5) Where a person under disability dies after the disability ceases but within the period allowed to him under this section, his legal representative may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the death, as would otherwise have been available to that person had he not died. " ( 35 ). The DDA had allotted the flat to the third respondent, B. N. Thapar. The DDA had failed to produce the file before Court relating to the allotment made to the third respondent and how the matter was dealt with by the DDA. Whatever be the position in 1989 when the allotment was made by the DDA to the third respondent, the petitioner was still a minor and his rights were intact. After attaining majority, the petitioner prayed for the cancellation of the order passed in 1985 and he offered to pay the money due. The DDA had not considered the same on the ground that allotment had already been made to the third respondent. In the counter-affidavit, as we have noticed earlier, the stand taken is that the order of cancellation ofallotment issued in 1985 is in accordance with law. The third respondent had purchased the flat believing representations made by the DDA. Therefore, his allotment cannot be disturbed. ( 36 ). Accordingly, the order passed by the DDA on the 27th of March, 1985 is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to the flat in question. As the flat in question had already been allotted to the third respondent in the year 1989, we are of the view that the allotment in favour of the third respondent should not be disturbed. A similar situation arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Rita Rastogi v. DDA and Another, 43 (1991) DLT 111. As the flat in question had already been allotted to the third respondent in the year 1989, we are of the view that the allotment in favour of the third respondent should not be disturbed. A similar situation arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Rita Rastogi v. DDA and Another, 43 (1991) DLT 111. The Division Bench solved the situation by staling: "at this stage, it has been brought to our notice that the said flat has already been allotted to another person and possession handed over. In order that an unwary purchaser may not be dislocated, we had asked the respondents to indicate if any other ground floor flat can be made available to the petitioner in the same vicinity. After considerable difficulty, we have today been informed that some of the flats in Vasant Kunj on the ground floor are available. One of the flats which has been offered to the petitioner is flat No. 1398, Ground Floor, Sector C, Pocket I, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. This flat is acceptable to the petitioner. We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give to the petitioner formal letter of allotment of flat No. 1398, Ground Floor, Pocket I, Sector C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi within one week from today and we further issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give vacant physical possession of the said flat to the petitioner within a fortnight thereafter. " ( 37 ). We are of the view that a direction deserves to be issued to the DDA to allot a flat to the petitioner of similar area to the flat that was allotted to his father in any similar colony in Delhi without demanding any extra money. ( 38 ). The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. The DDA is directed to allot and put the petitioner in possession of a flat in Delhi in similar locality and similar in area to the flat that was allotted to his father without charging any extra amount within six months from today. ( 39 ). There shall be no order as to costs.