Delhi District Court
Roshan Lal vs The Vice Chairman on 1 February, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE: WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS No. 378/12/04
Roshan Lal
S/o Late Shri Roop Chand
R/o E-23, Double Storey Qrs.,
Motia Khan, Delhi-110055.
..... Plaintiff
Vs.
The Vice Chairman
Delhi Development Authority
I.N.A Vikas Sadan
New Delhi.
...... Defendant
Date of Institution : 31.03.2004
Judgment Reserved for : 01.02.2014
Judgment Passed on : 01.02.2014
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant alongwith cost.
2. It is, inter alia, stated in the plaint that the plaintiff Shri Roshan Lal applied for Janta Flat under New Registration CS No. 378/12/04 Roshan Lal Vs DDA Page 1 of 10 2 Scheme, 1976 dated 04.06.1976 and deposited the initial amount vide Receipt No. 29818 of 31.05.1976 and complied with all the requirements as required by defendant/DDA. Since 1976 no flat was allotted to the plaintiff. Plaintiff from the reliable sources, came to know that the flat bearing no.173-B, JG-III, Vikas Puri, Bedella, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property) had been allotted in his favour, but by procuring false and frivolous documents, the suit property was transferred in the names of various persons and presently the same was occupied by Shri Bharat Bhushan Saraf in collusion with some of the officials of defendant/DDA who had filed a suit for specific performance, declaration, mandatory and perpetual injunction against all the forged and fabricated purchasers which was stated to be pending in the court of Shri A.K Pathak, Additional District Judge, Delhi.
It is further stated that after coming to know about this fact plaintiff sent so many letters to the defendant for forgery and fabrication in the documents in respect of the suit property and his complaint was referred to DPG for necessary action vide order of dated 20.05.2002.
It was alleged that plaintiff did not get satisfactory CS No. 378/12/04 Roshan Lal Vs DDA Page 2 of 10 3 reply or response from the defendant/DDA for the last about 12-15 years despite service of legal notice of dated 17.12.2003 which defendant failed to comply with. It was also alleged that the act of defendant/DDA was illegal, unlawful, uncalled for, unjust, improper, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice Hence, the suit.
4. In his Written Statement, defendant has stated one flat bearing no. 7C, JG-III, Bodela, Vikas Puri was alloted in the name of Shri Roshan Lal under General Housing Scheme-1976. Demand-cum-allotment letter was also issued on 09.04.1984, but the allotment was cancelled due to non-payment. It has been stated that physical possession of suit property had been taken over by someone impersonating the name of Roshan Lal on forged and fabricated documents and an FIR no. 234/97 had been lodged with PS Kotla Mubarakpur on 16.01.1997 against the same. It was stated that the suit property was alloted in the name of Shri Subhash Chander through draw of lots held on 27.01.1992 and after his death it was mutated in favour of his widow Smt. Mohini Devi and while handing over the possession to her, it was detected that plaintiff had taken over the possession of the suit property on forged and fabricated documents. It has also CS No. 378/12/04 Roshan Lal Vs DDA Page 3 of 10 4 been stated that the suit has not been properly valued for the sake of Court fee and jurisdiction. Thus, dismissal of the suit has been prayed for.
5. In the replication, the plaintiff has controverted all the pleas taken by the defendant and reiterated his own pleas.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court:-
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 53B, DD Act? OPD
2. Whether any flat was allotted in favour of plaintiff and the same was cancelled due to non payment of demanded dues within stipulated period? If so, its effect?
OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed? OPP
4. Relief.
7. In support of his case, plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1. He has deposed on affidavit which has been got CS No. 378/12/04 Roshan Lal Vs DDA Page 4 of 10 5 exhibited as Ex. P-1 alongwith documents Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/1A-C and Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/5. After tendering his affidavit on record inspite of opportunities, the plaintiff has not put appearance for his cross-examination.
8. In defence, defendant has examined Shri Atal Singh, Assistant Director, MIG Housing, DDA Vikas Sadan, DW-1. He has deposed on affidavit which has been exhibited as DW-1/A alongwith documents Ex. DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-1/9.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
10. Issue no. 2 The onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendant. In support of this they have examined Shri Atal Singh, Assistant Director, MIG Housing, DDA Vikas Sadan, DW-1. He has deposed on affidavit which has been exhibited as DW-1/A alongwith documents Ex. DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-1/9. He has stated in his affidavit that plaintiff got himself registered for a Janta flat under General Housing Scheme, 1976 under Reserve Category (SC) through registration application no. 3601 of dated 31.05.1976 and DDA issued Registration Certificate no. 909 and 2988 of CS No. 378/12/04 Roshan Lal Vs DDA Page 5 of 10 6 dated 31.05.1976. He was declared successful and alloted flat no. 7-C, Block-JG-III, Bodella, Vikas Puri and demand letter of dated 09.04.1984 was issued to him. Since he did not deposit the amount, the allotment was cancelled due to non payment. He has further deposed that suit flat bearing no. 7-C, Block-JG-III, Bodella, Vikas Puri was originally alloted to Shri Subhash Chander through a draw of lots held on 27.01.1992 and the allotment- cum-demand letter was issued on 25/30-11/1992. Copy of the same has been got exhibited as Ex. DW-1/1. Shri Subhash chander expired on 24.03.1993 and his wife Smt. Mohini Devi applied for mutation of land alongwith requisite documents. The flat was mutated in her name and possession letter of dated 24.10.1994 was also issued. Copy of the possession letter has been got exhibited as Ex. DW-1/2. NOC issued by the Assistant Director of dated 24.09.1994 has been got exhibited as Ex. DW-1/3.
11. He has also stated that when Smt Mohini Devi contacted the said site officer for taking possession of the suit flat it was revealed that the plaintiff has taken over the possession of the said flat by presenting forged and fabricated documents including possession letter to the concerned site officer. On CS No. 378/12/04 Roshan Lal Vs DDA Page 6 of 10 7 coming to know about this, the matter was referred to the competent authority of DDA for investigation. After investigation FIR no. 234/97 of dated 16.01.1997 was registered at PS Kotla Mubarakpur against the plaintiff under Section 420/468/471 of IPC. A reminder of dated 15.10.1997 to Deputy Commissioner of Police for expediting the investigation was also sent . Attested copies of the covering letter and FIR have been got exhibited as Ex. DW-1/4 and Ex. DW-1/5. Thus, the plaintiff had forged and fabricated the documents of possession and the signatures of Assistant Director (H) General appearing on the documents Ex. DW-1/6, Ex. DW-1/7, Ex. DW-1/8 and Ex. DW-1/9. No such documents of possession and other documents for allotment of flat relating to the allotment and possession of suit flat had ever been issued to the plaintiff by the defendant. He has no right, title or interest in the suit property i.e 7-C, Block-JG-III, Bodella, Vikas Puri.
12. It is further stated that suit bearing no. 136/97 titled as Bharat Bhushan Sharaff Vs DDA was also pending in the court of Shri Sunil Rana, ADJ/Delhi in respect of the suit property and plaintiff was defendant no. 2 in the said suit. Flat no. 173-B , Block-JG-III, Vikas Puri, Budella New Delhi was allotted in the CS No. 378/12/04 Roshan Lal Vs DDA Page 7 of 10 8 name of Shri Subhash Chander and after his death it was mutated in the name of his wife Smt. Mohini Devi. Thus, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property.
13. The plaintiff did not put appearance and has not cross-examined this witness. Since, this witness has not been cross-examined inspite of opportunities, his testimony has gone unrebutted which ought to be believed. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
14. Issue no. 1.
This issue has not been pressed by the defendant/DDA, therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
15. Issue no. 3.
The onus to prove this issue lies upon the plaintiff. In support of this, he has examined himself as PW-1. He has deposed on affidavit which has been got exhibited as Ex. P-1 alongwith documents Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/1A-C and Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/5. He has stated that he got himself registered under New Registration Scheme 1976 of dated 04.06.1976 and deposited the initial amount vide receipt no. 29818 of dated 31.05.1976. He has got exhibited the registration CS No. 378/12/04 Roshan Lal Vs DDA Page 8 of 10 9 documents as Ex. PW-1/1. He has stated that he was not alloted any flat. He has further stated that he came to know that flat bearing no. 173-B, JG-III, Vikas Puri, Budella, New Delhi was alloted to him, but by procuring false and frivolous documents, the same was occupied by Shri Bharat Bhushan Saraf who has been in occupation of the flat and has filed a suit for specific performance, declaration, mandatory and perpetual injunction against all the forged and fabricated purchaser and he has also been impleaded as one of the defendants which was said to have been pending in the court of Shri A.K Pathak, Additional District Judge, Delhi which was being contested. When this fact came to his knowledge in the year 1998, he made a complaint with the Public Grievances which was referred for necessary action. He has stated that he was never alloted any flat, rather he has become the victim of the fraud committed by the various persons. He has sent legal notice of dated 17.12.2003 which has been got exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2 alongwith postal receipt Ex. PW-1/3 and Ex. PW-1/4 and AD card Ex. PW-1/5.
After tendering his affidavit on record inspite of opportunities, the plaintiff has not put appearance for his cross- examination. The fact that he has not put appearance and CS No. 378/12/04 Roshan Lal Vs DDA Page 9 of 10 10 defendant has not got any opportunity to cross-examine this witness, his testimony remains incomplete which cannot be read in evidence. That being so, there is no evidence on record to prove this issue. Therefore, this issue goes against the plaintiff.
16. Issue no. 4 (Relief).
In view of the findings on issue no. 2 which has gone in favour of the defendant and plaintiff has failed to prove issue no. 3, he is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only). Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (SUKHDEV SINGH) on 01.02.2014. Addl. District Judge:05 West District: THC Delhi.
CS No. 378/12/04 Roshan Lal Vs DDA Page 10 of 10