Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 889 (DEL)

BHUSHAN LAL CHAWLA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2000-10-17

VIJENDER JAIN, VUENDER JAIN

body2000
Vijender Jain ( 1 ) FATHER of the petitioner got registered for an LIG flat on hire purchase basis in Residential Scheme known as NPRS, 1979. Father of the petitioner died in 1985. A demand-cum-allotment letter was received by the petition on 17. 2. 1993 at a disposal cost of Rs. 2,69,800. 00, cost was calculated by the respondent and required to be paid by the petitioner on cash down basis. There was a clause in the allotment-cum-demand letter that if the payment was not received by the respondent on or before 18th May, 1993, there will be an automatic cancellation of the allotment. After draw of lots was held on 28. 12. 1992, within 45 days of the draw of lots, the petitioner wrote a letter on29. 3. 1993 that his father has died and his name may he substituted in place of his deceased father so as to enable him to make payment of the amount. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that although he has intimated to the respondent about death of his father in May, 1993, the respondent did not send any demand-cum-allotment letter in the name of the petitioner. It has been contended before me by learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent took four years to mutate the name of the petitioner in their record in place of his deceased father and it was only on 4. 11. 1997 that a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to the petitioner. In the said demand-cum-allotment letter respondent enhanced the cost of the flat from Rs. 2,69,800. 00 to Rs. 3,82,026. 25. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned demand is totally arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for DDA has contended that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1985. Intimation of the death of father of the petitioner was not sent by the petitioner prior to 1993. He has further contended that the documents required to be filed by the petitioner for getting the name of the petitioner mutated in place of late Chaman Lal was not filed by the petitioner and, therefore, respondent took four years time to record change in the name of petitioner. He has further contended that petitioner has not deposited any amount apart from a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 and an amount of Rs. He has further contended that petitioner has not deposited any amount apart from a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 and an amount of Rs. 1,500. 00 which was deposited by father of the petitioner. ( 4 ) I have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced by Counsel for the parties. I do not find any force in the argument of Counsel for the respondent that the death of the father was not communicated to the respondent. The question of communication of the death of the father of the petitioner only since after the draw of lots was held and a communication was received from DDA that late Chaman Lal was found to be eligible for allotment of flat. Said letter was issued by the respondent only on 17. 2. 1993. Respondent itself took almost thirteen years to hold the draw of lots of a scheme which was of the year 1979. The communication which was received in the name of deceased father of the petitioner was only in the year 1992. The petitioner within forty five days of the receipt of the communication informed the respondent that father of the petitioner had died in 1985. He had valid documents in his favour. Will has also been executed in favour of the petitioner. There is no reason for the respondent not to act swiftly on the representation of the petitioner. In this case it has been alleged by the petitioner that as many as nine communications including pre-paid telegrams were addressed to the respondent but of no avail. ( 5 ) I find no force in the arguments of Counsel for the respondent that a letter was written to the petitioner in 1994 for submission of affidavits of other legal heirs. I would like to deal with this letter. In view of the fact that petitioner has placed before the respondent a Will duly executed, then what was the necessity of writing this letter to the petitioner and even assuming that with all bona fide intentions the said letter was written to the petitioner, then why all the documents which were required to be furnished by the petitioner were not indicated in the said letter. After 1st August, 1994 it seems a letter was received after a gap of almost two years by the petitioner demanding some more documents, i. e. FDR in original of late Chaman Lal Gupta and a registered certificate. To my mind, these documents were pre-requisite for getting the name of the petitioner mutated and they ought to have been demanded by the respondent at the first instance. Why these documents were demanded only in 1996 speaks the manner in which representations are dealt in the office of the respondent. It has also been contended before me by learned Counsel for the petitioner that consent of all other legal heirs was given in the office of the respondent way back on 13. 12. 1992 itself. Documents required were there in the file of the department except one document. Sitting over the representation of the petitioner was nothing but an act of harassment on the part of the respondent. There is no justification for the respondent to have issued a revised demand-cum-allotment letter as the delay which was caused in the matter of allotment was on account of inaction on the part of the respondent. Delay in issuance of demand-cum-allotment letter has caused undue harassment to the petitioner. In the circumstances, I issue a direction to the Vice Chairman of DDA to fix responsibility on the officers concerned who have dealt with the case and caused enormous delay of four years in informing in piece-meal manner. After fixing responsibility the Vice Chairman should impose penalty on the dealing officers in the department who have dealt with this file in such a cursory manner. ( 6 ) I set aside the impugned demand placed at page No. 37 of the paper book for the reasons stated above. As the petitioner has not deposited the amount demanded although on account of inaction on the part of the respondent, let the petitioner pay interest @ 15% from the date of filing of the petition till date. On the initial demand of Rs. 2,69,800. 00 respondent shall give credit to the petitioner of the amount of Rs. 15,000. 00- deposited by the petitioner and of Rs. 1,500. 00 already deposited by father of the petitioner with the respondent. A fresh demand-cum-allotment letter be issued within four weeks. Thereafter, petitioner shall deposit the amount within four weeks. On the initial demand of Rs. 2,69,800. 00 respondent shall give credit to the petitioner of the amount of Rs. 15,000. 00- deposited by the petitioner and of Rs. 1,500. 00 already deposited by father of the petitioner with the respondent. A fresh demand-cum-allotment letter be issued within four weeks. Thereafter, petitioner shall deposit the amount within four weeks. On deposit of the amount the possession of the flat be handed over to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute. Writ Petition is allowed. Writ Petition allowed.