Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 361 (DEL)

HARBHAJAN SINGH KALRA v. D. D. A.

2009-04-02

RIMA KOHLI

body2009
ORDER 1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the respondent DDA directing it to allot a LIG flat to the petitioner under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (in short the NPRS 1979). 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the priority number of the petitioner was covered in September, 2007, the respondent failed to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of a flat, thus compelling to him to file the present writ petition. 3. Though a counter affidavit has not been filed, Counsel for the respondent states at the outset that the respondent has considered the case of the petitioner and has decided to allot an LIG flat to him under the aforesaid scheme. She further states that the cost of allotment is being calculated by the department and a demand-cum-allotment letter shall be issued to the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid statement made by the Counsel for the respondent, the present writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent to issue a demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner for an LIG flat under the NPRS-1979 within a period of four weeks from today, at the cost when the priority of the petitioner was missed, in terms of the circular dated 28.5.2003 issued by the respondent in that regard. 5. The writ petition is disposed of along with the pending application. There shall be no costs. Petition disposed of. , . 158 (2009) DELHI LAW TIMES 509 DELHI HIGH COURT Hima Kohli, J. PRITP AL KAUR -Petitioner versus D.D.A. -Respondent W.P.(C) 4987/2008 and CM No. 9547 of 2008-Decided on 2.4.2009 Allotment of MIG Flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 - Allotment of petitioner cancelled due to some miscommunication Case of petitioner examined by competent authority, she has not been allotted MIG Flat - Demand-cum-allotment letter shall be issued to petitioner - Petitioner deposited initial amount of Rs. 29,830/- on 31.8.1989 within stipulated time period - She had requested respondent that as her husband has expired she may be granted some further time to furnish necessary documents for transfer of allotment in her name Directions issued to respondent. lParas 5,61 Result: Writ Petition & Application disposed of. Counsel for the Parties: For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Kinra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Anita Pandey, Advocate. lParas 5,61 Result: Writ Petition & Application disposed of. Counsel for the Parties: For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Kinra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Anita Pandey, Advocate. ORDER 1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the respondent DDA directing it to allot a MIG flat to the petitioner under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (in short the NPRS-1979). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was a registrant under the NPRS-1979. He expired on 5.10.1988. An intimation of his demise was conveyed to the respondent on 16.9.1989. In the meantime, on 5.3.1989, the registrant was allotted a flat bearing No. 438, Pocket-B, Second Floor, East Loni Road, Delhi. All the payments were made to the respundent in respect of the aforesaid flat by 31.8.1989. 510 THE DELHI LAW TIMES (April) 2009 3. On 14.3.1990, the respondent DDA intimated the wife of the deceased registrant, petitioner herein, that the allotment had been cancelled due to nonsubmission of certain documents. The petitioner explained to the respondent that as her husband had expired prior to the allotment and her two sons, who while serving as Pilots in the Indian Air Force, had lost their lives in an air crash, she was not in a position to subIIlit the documents within the time granted. The petitioner sought to explain the delay to the respondent, but having failed to elicit any positive response from it, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. Counsel for the respondent states at the outset that the case of the petitioner was examined by the competent authority during the pendency of the present writ petition and she has now been allotted an MIG flat bearing No. 1085, Second Floor, Pocket B, East Loni Road, Delhi, through a computerized draw of lots held on 11.11.2008. It is further stated thatthe cost of the flat is being worked out, whereafter a demand-cum-allotment letter shall be issued to the petitioner. It is also not denied by the respondent that the petitioner had deposited the initial amount of Rs. 29,830/ - on 31.8.1989 within the stipulated time period and she had requested the respondent DDA that as her husband had expired, she may be granted some further time to furnish the necessary documents for transfer of allotment in her name. It is also not denied by the respondent that the petitioner had deposited the initial amount of Rs. 29,830/ - on 31.8.1989 within the stipulated time period and she had requested the respondent DDA that as her husband had expired, she may be granted some further time to furnish the necessary documents for transfer of allotment in her name. The respondent DDA has stated in the counter affidavit that due to some miscommunication, the allotment was cancelled on 13.12.1989, whereafter the petitioner was informed of the cancellation, vide letter dated 14.3.1990. 5. In view of the aforesaid position, the writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent DDA to issue a demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner at the cost as was prevalent at the time of the original allotment, within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, the petitioner shall complete all the requisite formalities including payment of any outstanding amount, within the stipulated time, whereafter the flat in question shall be allotted to the petitioner within four weeks therefrom. 6. The writ petition is disposed of along with the pending application. No orders as to costs. c e Writ Petition & Application disposed of. f