Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 432 (DEL)

BIMLA GROVER v. D. D. A.

2009-04-16

SANJIV KHANNA

body2009
ORDER 1. In 1979, Mr. Chander Prakash Grover got himself registered with DDA under NPRS Scheme, 1979 for allotment of flat under LIG category. In the draw of flats held on 5th October, 1993, Mr. Chander Prakash Grover was allotted a flat on cash down basis and an allotment letter was posted. 2. By letter dated 16th March, 1994, Ms. Bimla Grover wife of Mr. Chander Prakash Grover intimated and informed DDA that her husband had expired on 11th April, 1993. It was stated that she was not in condition to pay costs of flat on cash down and wants some relief. She requested for transfer of the registration in her name. 3. In the draw of flats held on 31st March, 1995, DDA once again allotted a flat at Kondli Gharoli in the name of Mr. Chander Prakash Grover on hire purchase basis. However, it appears that allotment letter of the said flat could not be issued as it was a case of double allotment, which is clear from the notings between the dates 17th August, 1995 and 29th August, 1995. 4. On 10th February, 2005, Ms. Birnla Grover again wrote a letter to DDA for transfer of mutation and enclosed therewith several documents like indemnity bond, consent letter and affidavits along with original registration in the name of Mr. Chander Prakash Grover. The papers given by Ms. Bimla Grover were duly verified, when Ms. Bimla Grover appeared personally along with the original papers. Thereupon in the month of May, 2005, necessary mutation entries were made and by letter dated 6th June, 2005 Ms. Bimla Grover was informed that the registration in the name of late Chander Prakash Grover, stands transferred in her name. 5. The file notings show that in September, 2006, file was processed for allotment of flat on the basis of current cost. The file was approved by Additional Director LIG, Director-Housing H(ii) and Commissioner (Housing). 6. On 11th May, 2007, Ms. Bimla Grover in the draw of lots was allotted LIG No. 116 (THD) Pkt. A-3, Kondli Gharoli. 7. Thereafter the file was sent to the Costing Department and the current cost of the flat was duly calculated and submitted for approval. A note dated 30 July, 2007 was prepared approving the said cost by AAO iv IHAC. The said note is in blue ink. The file was processed and signed by other senior officers. A-3, Kondli Gharoli. 7. Thereafter the file was sent to the Costing Department and the current cost of the flat was duly calculated and submitted for approval. A note dated 30 July, 2007 was prepared approving the said cost by AAO iv IHAC. The said note is in blue ink. The file was processed and signed by other senior officers. Thereafter, the same officer, who had written note dated 30th July, 2007 in blue ink, has written a note dated 14th August, 2007 in black ink. It is apparent from the file that while writing the note dated 14th August, 2007, he has made changes in the note dated 30th July, 2007 and has added the words to the note dated 30th July, 2007 after marking an axtrix mark as there was no space and also changed the date from 30th to 31st July, 2007. The note dated 30th July, 2007 reads as under: "Reference note of AD/LIG at P-10/N note of Dealing, Asst at P-10/N-11/N. As per mutation policy, this case does not cover under the mutation policy. In this case allottee (Legal heir) approaches DDA for transfer of registration as well as allotment of the flat approx after 12 years i.e. 9-2-05 (P-31/c) i.e. (Not within a yr from date of Issue of DAL) and even there was no response to AD/LIG letter dated 6-2-95 for submitting the requisite documents for transfer of registration. Hence X this case does not cover under the mutation policy and fault lies on the part of the Legal heirs. However, if agreed we may charge current cost in r/o flat No. 116G, Pkt A-3, Kondli Garoli, allottee to Smt. Bimla Grover, in the draw held on 11-5-07. Current Cost of the flat comes to Rs. 8,13,818/- (see X as above). In this cost, if approved other charge may be added by me M/using as per housing policy. Submitted for kind/consideration." (The addition made by the concerned officer in black ink have been highlighted and underlined). 8. On the basis of the second note dated 14th August, 2007, the file was again re-processed and it was decided to cancel the mutation already granted in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 6th June, 2005. Before cancelling the mutation, no show-cause notice was issued and no questions were asked. There is thus clearly violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Before cancelling the mutation, no show-cause notice was issued and no questions were asked. There is thus clearly violation of principles of natural justice. 9. The stand taken by the DDA in the counter affidavit is that after letter dated 16th March, 1994 was received from Ms. Bimla Grover about death of her husband-Mr. Chander Prakash Grover, DDA had written letter dated 6th March, 1995, calling upon Ms. Bimla Grover to submit documents. Carbon copy of alleged letter dated 6th March, 1995 is on record. However, proof of dispatch, mode of dispatch and delivery are not available on record of DDA. No such proof has also been enclosed with the counter affidavit. It also appears that DDA did not thereafter write any other letter and ask for clarification or warn the petitioner about the consequences. In the absence of any proof of issue and the receipt by Ms. Bimla Grover, I do not think that DDA was justified in cancelling the mutation. Second opportunity by writing a letter and asking the petitioner to submit necessary paper and comply with formalities is expected and required from a public authority, specially when failure results in adverse consequences. DDA as per their records remained quiet from March, 1995 till 2005. 10. The petitioner as per the note dated 30th July, 2007 was not covered by the Mutation Policy and therefore was liable to pay current cost and not entitled to benefit of cost payable at the time of allotment, i.e., 1993. It is difficult to appreciate and accept that delay in filing papers/documents can result in forfeiting registration. The Scheme did not have any such stipulation. Allotments under N.P.R. Scheme, 1979 were being made even in 2005, as the list had not been exhausted. No allotment in favour of the petitioner /her husband was made between 1995 and 2005. Failure or non-submission of documents for mutation did not make any difference. The registration amount was retained by DDA. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the DDA cancelling the mutation, granted in favour of the petitioner Ms. Bimla Grover, is cancelled. Ms. Failure or non-submission of documents for mutation did not make any difference. The registration amount was retained by DDA. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the DDA cancelling the mutation, granted in favour of the petitioner Ms. Bimla Grover, is cancelled. Ms. Bimla Grover will be entitled to allotment in terms of draw of flats held on 11th May, 2007 and as per the cost calculated on 26th July, 2007, DDA will not charge any interest on the said cost as the default and delay in issuing allotment letter is on the part of the DDA itself. As DDA is not permitted to charge any interest on the aforesaid amount, I am not imposing cost on DDA, though facts justify imposition of exemplary cost. The allotment letter and necessary formalities will be completed by DDA within a period of four weeks. Vice-Chairman of the DDA will examine the file and if required, take departmental action. Writ petition is disposed of. Writ Petition