Delhi District Court
Sh Kasturi Lal vs Delhi Development Authority on 24 December, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH ASHUTOSH KUMAR: SCJ cumRC:
NORTH WEST: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
S18/09
Sh Kasturi Lal
S/o Sh Vikram Chand
R/o Flat No. 15, Pocket10,
Sector24, Rohini,
Delhi110085,
through its G.P.A.
Sh. Ravi Prakash Jain ................Plaintiff
vs.
1.Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman
I.N.A Vikas Sadan, New Delhi110023.
2.The Director (Housing) Housing Department (Janta)
Delhi Development Authority
I.N.A Vikas Sadan, New Delhi110023.
3The Executive Engineer (RPD10)
Delhi Development Authority
Rohini, Delhi110085. ...................Defendants
24.12.2011
1. Vide this order I shall pass the orders on
preliminary issue framed on 19.11.11 to the following effect.
"Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable? OPD."
con.............
2
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for
declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction through
his G.P.A. Sh. Ravi Parkash Jain. The right for addressing
arguments on preliminary issue on behalf of plaintiff was
closed as none came on behalf of the plaintiff to address
arguments on the said preliminary issue.
3. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that the
defendant had alloted a Flat No. 15, Pocket10, Sector24 in
Rohini, Expandable Scheme, Delhi110085 (herein after called
the suit property) to the plaintiff under the housing scheme
published by the defendant no.1 for rehabilitation of Punjab
migrants, on the basis of recommendation letter of Sub
Divisional Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner Concerned for
which allotmentcumdemand letters were issued by the
defendants to the plaintiff on 08.10.02 vide file No.
A353(2281)/2002/HSRPM/RO. The plaintiff further averred
that as per the demand cum allotment letter dated 08.10.02
the plaintiff has deposited the entire price towards the
con.............
3
allotment cost of the flat in question alongwith the requisite
documents in the office of defendants. Thereafter the
possession of the flat in question was handed over by the
defendants to the plaintiff on 17.04.03 after satisfaction in all
respect. The plaintiff further mentioned that defendants have
issued NOC for the installation of electric meter in the flat in
question. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that he has been
residing in the said flat since then without any interference by
anybody and as such the plaintiff has peaceful legal
possession of the flat in question. It is further stated by the
plaintiff that suddenly on 24.11.08, he came to know about the
cancellation of allotment of flat in question. However, no
letter/intimation was received by the plaintiff from the
defendants so far. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
cancellation of allotment of flat in question is totally illegal,
unjustified, unwarranted and against the principle of natural
justice and against the facts and law. It is further the case of
the plaintiff that defendants illegally and invalidly as well as
even without any mistake of the plaintiff, have cancelled the
allotment of the flat in question of the plaintiff and the
con.............
4
defendants have no legal right to cancel the allotment of the
flat in question as the plaintiff is a rightful allottee of the said
flat, since, the plaintiff has already deposited the entire
allotment price of the flat in question after submitting all the
necessary documents. The plaintiff has stated that he had
served a legal notice dated 24.12.08 through her counsel upon
the defendants as required U/s 53B of D.D. Act but the
defendants are adamant to take possession of the flat in
question. Since no response was received with regard to the
said notice, there is no other efficacious remedy available to
the plaintiff except the present suit. Plaintiff has prayed for
declaration, declaring that the cancellation of flat bearing no.
15, Pocket10, Sector24, Rohini, Delhi110085 in residential
expandable scheme is totally illegal, unjustified, unwarranted,
against the natural justice and against the facts and law and
the flat in question be restored in the name of the plaintiff
after declaring the cancellation dated 24.11.08 or whatsoever
as null and void. Plaintiff has further prayed that a decree for
mandatory injunction be also passed in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendants, directing the defendants to
con.............
5
complete the other formalities, if any, with the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has also prayed that a decree of permanent
injunction be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants thereby restraining the defendants
permanently from allotting the flat in question to any other
person.
4. Defendant no.1 DDA filed its WS and has contested
the avernments of the plaintiff.
5. Defendant no.2 The Director Housing Department
(Janta) and defendant no.3 The Executive Engineer (RPD10)
DDA have been made party but they had not filed any formal
reply and in my considered opinion, the reply on their part is
not needed as concerned land owning agency DDA has been
made a party in the present case as defendant no.1 and is
contesting the case.
6. In the WS it is stated by defendant no.1 that no
notice U/s 53(B) of Delhi Development Act, 1957 was served
upon the plaintiff before filing of the suit, which was a
con.............
6
mandatory requirement and since the relief of declaration has
also been claimed, therefore, the present suit is not
maintainable as the aforesaid notice was mandatory
requirement to be served upon the plaintiff, before filing the
present suit. It is further mentioned that as per section 17 of
Registration Act, the registration of conveyance deed in favour
of the original allottee was mandatory, which is not the case
herein and in the absence of the same, no such document
which confers any title, right wrt suit property on the original
allottee, can be considered. It is also mentioned that as per
clause 10 of the application form, which reads as under the
status of the original allottee was that of a tenant as full
payment of the said flat was not made by him/her. "An allotte
taking possession of the house on hire purchase mode of
payment, will have the status of a tenant as defined under the
DDA ( Management & Disposal of Housing Estate)
Regulations1968
An allottee who makes full payment of the house ,
will have the status of a free hold owner. DDA will be executing
a conveyance deed in favour of such an allottee on completion
con.............
7
of required documentation".
Further as per clause 15 of the application form, in
respect of misrepresentation or suppression of facts, the
application/ allotment was to be rejected summarily and is
liable to be cancelled without making any reference to the
applicant and in case of such cancellation, allottee will be
liable to pay penalty as prescribed under clause 9 and in view
of this fact, the attorney holder Sh Ravi Prakash Jain has no
locus standi to file the present suit. Admittedly no
conveyance deed/ lease has been signed in favour of original
allottee Sh Kasturi Lal & that the allotment is based on hire
purchase agreement and since the original allottee failed to
appear before competent authority on 23.11.04 alongwith all
original document for verification of his eligibility and
genuineness, therefore, the allotement was cancelled by the
answering defendant. It is further mentioned that the present
suit ought to have filed under the signature of the original
allottee to establish his true identity and the agreement being
not a registered document, is not acceptable in the eyes of
law. It is further mentioned that the attorney is neither the
con.............
8
owner of the suit property nor original allottee. It is also the
case of the plaintiff that the Govt. of NCT, Delhi through
SDM/ Deputy Commissioner , Punjabi Bagh, Main Rohtak
Road, Nangloi, Delhi110041 was also necessary and proper
party to the present suit but since they have not been made a
party, the present suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder
of necessary parties.
7. It is an admitted case of the plaintiff that Sh
Kasturi Lal was the original allottee of the aforesaid suit
property. Further it is also the admitted case of the defendant
that the said flat was alloted on hire purchase basis and
conveyance deed was not executed in his favour. Thus he did
not have ownership right with respect of suit flat. Further
admittedly since no conveyance deed has been registered in
favour of the original allottee by DDA and no such registered
documents is on record, therefore, the title/ ownership right
of the said property has not transferred in favour of the
original allottee. Also the said cancellation notice of the
aforesaid flat was issued on the basis of verification carried
con.............
9
out by SDM/ Deputy Commissioner of Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Further, Govt. of NCT of Delhi through SDM/D.C., Punjabi
Bagh, Main Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi110041, should have
been made a party in the present case as they were necessary
party to the present suit. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is also
bad for non joinder of necessary party.
8. Further it is submitted by the defendant that Sh.
Kasturi Lal S/o Sh.Vikram Chand R/o P.V.T. Peeragrahi Camp,
Delhi had obtained the allotment through file No.
A353(2281)/02/HSRPM/RO and the SDM (Punjabi Bagh) had
issued a show cause notice on 16.11.04 to Sh. Kasturi Lal S/o
Sh. Vikram Chand with the directions to appear before the
committee on 23.11.04 alongwith all original documents for
verification of his eligibility and genuineness. It is further
submitted that Sh. Kasturi Lal S/o Sh. Vikram Chand did not
appear before the Committee. Accordingly, a press
notification was also given in three leading newspapers
namely Dainik Jagran, Navbharat Times and Punjab Kesri on
04.06.06 by the SDM Punjabi Bagh wherein it was clearly
con.............
10
mentioned that this was the last opportunity and the allottee
may appear before the Committee. Even after issue of press
notification, Sh. Kasturi Lal S/o Sh. Vikram Chand had failed
to appear before the Committee. Therefore, after approval of
the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Revenue),
Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Vice Chairman of answering
defendant, a cancellation letter dated 24.11.08 in respect of
flat No. 15, Ground Floor, TypeA, Pkt. 10, Sector24, Rohini
was issued on 24.11.08 with the directions to hand over the
possession of flat to the Executive Engineer, RPD10 on
23.12.08, otherwise possible steps will be taken under process
of law to evict from the aforesaid flat. It is submitted that the
plaintiff/allottee failed to appear before the Deputy
Commissioner on 23.11.04 for reverification. Therefore, the
answering respondent had rightly canceled the allotment of
flat of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff does not have good prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has no right title or interest over the flat in question as the flat in dispute has already been canceled.
con.............
11
9. From the material on record, it appears that the said scheme was floated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi as a welfare measure for the migrants of Punjab who were staying in several refugee camps and the said flats were at subsidized rates compared to the market rates and the original allottee was alloted one of said such flats and the defendant was within its right to issue show cause notice to the original allottee in case of doubt which is the case herein. Since the original allotee or the plaintiff did not appear before the committee for verification of documents, it creates doubt as to whether the documents submitted by the plaintiff were genuine or not. Merely because the original allottee was alloted the suit flat on the basis of initial documents submitted by him, it cannot be held that the same were genuine or that there was no need for reverification. Also as per clause 15 of the application form in case of misrepresentation or supression of facts, the allotment was to be summarily rejected. Still the original allottee/the plaintiff choose not to produce such document for verification before con.............
12 the concerned committee, therefore, the defendants were well within their right to quash the allotment of said flat. From the material on record it is clear that there is no legal right existing in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of which the relief as prayed for, can be granted, even if the case of the plaintiff is taken on its face value.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Accordingly preliminary issue is decided in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Consequently the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Ashutosh Kumar) today i.e. on 24.12.2011 SCJcumRC:NW:Delhi.
con.............
13 S No. 18/09 Kasturi Lal Vs. DDA & Anr.
24.12.2011 Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date, dictated to the Stenographer and announced in the open court, the following preliminary issue: " Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD", is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
(Ashutosh Kumar) SCJcumRC:NW:Rohini Courts, Delhi.
con.............