Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1142 (DEL)

MEENAKSHI KALRA v. D. D. A.

2007-05-25

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (Open Court)-The petitioner has been knocking the doors of the DDA for the allotment of a flat in her name for several years. She approached the Court earlier too. She has had to again come to the Court on account of the refusal by the DDA to restore to her name the allotment of flat No. 189, Block-C, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi or any other flat of the same size in same locality which was allotted to her deceased mother. 2. The petitioners mother Smt. Raj Kalra applied to the DDA for a MIG flat under the "IVth Registration Scheme of New Pattern, 1979 (HUDCO)", on 4.9.1979. She deposited a sum of Rs. 4500/ -. The petitioners mother died on 5.10.1990 leaving the petitioner here as a legal heir. For transferring the registration in her name, the DDA required the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate. Pursuant to the application made by her in 1994, the petitioner was granted a succession certificate on 13.10.2002, by the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi. 3. When the petitioners father visited the office of the DDA on 18.5.2002 to enquire about the allotment of the flat, he noticed that the allotment made in the name of the petitioner smother had been struck off and somebody elses name had been written in respect of Flat No. 189, Block-C, Sector 18, Rohini. The petitioner then sent a legal notice dated 26.10.2002 asking the DDA to allot the said flat in the petitioners name. 4. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 138 of 2003 which was disposed of on 3.3.2003 after the Court was informed that the petitioner had been sent a letter dated 25.2.2003 asking the petitioner to complete all formalities for getting the allotment of the flat. By a letter dated 3.3.2004, the DDA informed the petitioner that the registration standing in the name of late Smt. Raj Kalra has "since been transferred in your name through the guardianship of your father Shri S.N. Kalra." 5. Aggrieved by the failure of the DDA to allot her a flat despite the above communication, the petitioner filed CM No. 14049/2004 in the disposed of writ petition. However that application was dismissed with the observation that a substantive petition was required to be filed. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. 6. Aggrieved by the failure of the DDA to allot her a flat despite the above communication, the petitioner filed CM No. 14049/2004 in the disposed of writ petition. However that application was dismissed with the observation that a substantive petition was required to be filed. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. 6. The main plank of the petitioners arguments is that having completed all the formalities, she ought to be allotted a flat by the DDA. Notice was directed to issue on 8.11.2006 and Counsel for the DDA present in the Court accepted the notice on that date itself. Thereafter on 13.12.2006, 23.2.2007 and 17.5.2007, the DDA was granted time for filing a reply. Still, no reply was filed. On 17.5.2007, the Counsel for the DDA informed the d Court that reply would be filed on 21.5.2007. 7. When the matter was taken up on 21.5.2007, the counter affidavit had not still been filed. Instead Ms. Shobhana Takiar, learned Counsel for the DDA submitted that the reason why the petitioner was not allotted a flat was on account of an Office Order dated 1.1.2001 whereby it has been stated as under: "In case, death occurs prior to allotment of flat, time of two years would be counted from the date of issue of demand letter and where allotment is made after the death the period of two years will be counted from the date of issue of show-cause notice for non-payment of due amount. II Ms. Takiar submitted that since the petitioner claims to have come to know of the earlier allotment having been cancelled on 18.5.2002 itself, the petitioner should have approached the DDA for restoration of the cancelled allotment at least within two years thereafter. 8. The Court finds the stand of the DDA not to be reasonable. The two years period, within which the petitioner was to have approached the DDA, can at best be taken to have begun on 18.5.2002, when the petitioners father first learnt of the cancellation of the allotment already made. It cannot be said that the petitioner delayed in approaching the DDA thereafter. First of all, the earlier writ petition was filed in 2003 and was disposed of on 3.3.2003 on contest. Clearly, the petitioner had by that process already brought to the notice of the DDA that the flat in question ought to be allotted in her name. It cannot be said that the petitioner delayed in approaching the DDA thereafter. First of all, the earlier writ petition was filed in 2003 and was disposed of on 3.3.2003 on contest. Clearly, the petitioner had by that process already brought to the notice of the DDA that the flat in question ought to be allotted in her name. Thus, the DDA already knew in 2003 that the petitioner was aggrieved by non-allotment of the flat. Further, on 3.11.2003, a representation was made to the DDA by the petitioner. This was followed by CM No. 14049/2004. In the above circumstances, the stand taken by the DDA that the claim made by the petitioner is belated, is unacceptable. 9. The petitioner, having completed all the formalities, should be now given a flat of the same size in the same locality or in the nearest possible locality. It is directed that the DDA will hold special draw and make allotment of a flat of the same size, preferably in the same locality, within eight weeks from today and in any event not later than 30.7.2007. 10. With the above directions the writ petition is allowed. Considering the number of times that the petitioner had to approach the Court, the DDA is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks from today. Writ Petition allowed.