Delhi High Court
Brinda Ghosh vs Dda on 13 February, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6871/2009
Decided on: 13th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
BRINDA GHOSH ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Richa Kapur with
Ms. Anupma Singh, Advocates.
versus
DDA ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura,
Advocate
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/DDA to hold a mini draw of lots and allot a MIG flat in her favour, under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 (in short 'the NPRS 1979') against registration No.13495, whereunder the deceased father of the petitioner, Shri Amal Chandra Biswas was earlier registered.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1979, late Shri Amal Chandra Biswas got registered with the respondent/DDA under the NPRS 1979. At the time of registration, as required by the respondent/DDA, he had furnished two addresses in his application form, one was his residential W.P.(C) No.6871/2009 Page 1 of 8 address and the other was his occupational address. The petitioner's father had typed a note in the column of "occupational address", in the application, for the purpose of correspondence, stating inter alia that his occupation address was "C/o M/s Voltas Limited, 31, Najafgarh Road, Delhi- 110015‟.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid registration, late Shri Amal Chandra Biswas made regular visits to the office of the respondent/DDA to enquire about the status of his allotment. However, he was repeatedly informed that he was a wait-listed applicant. On 31.12.1991, the petitioner's father expired. He was survived by his wife, i..e, mother of the petitioner. However, she did not take any steps to approach the respondent/DDA for transfer of the registration in her name. The position remained the same right upto 2.3.2008, when she expired. It is the case of the petitioner that as the sole surviving legal heir after the demise of her mother, she decided to follow up the pending registration of her father with the respondent/DDA and made a request to get the same mutated in her name.
4. On 4.8.2008, the petitioner submitted all requisite documents for the purpose of mutation. On 12.9.2008, the petitioner furnished further documents as called upon by the respondent/DDA. As per the petitioner, after completion of all necessary formalities and verification by the W.P.(C) No.6871/2009 Page 2 of 8 respondent/DDA, the mutation took place in her favour, vide letter dated 7.10.2008 issued by the respondent/DDA (at page 27 of the paper book). Thereafter, upon inquiry, the petitioner came to know that a flat in Dwarka Zone had been allotted to her father in the year 2002, but at the relevant time, the respondent/DDA had dispatched a demand-cum-allotment letter at his residential address as given in his application and not at the occupational address. The aforesaid demand-cum-allotment letter was returned back undelivered and subsequently, the allotment was automatically cancelled by the respondent/DDA.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the respondent/DDA had never dispatched the demand-cum-allotment letter at the occupational address of her deceased father, despite the fact that there was a specific note endorsed by him in the application form that all correspondences were to be sent to his occupational address. She states that on 5.11.2008, the petitioner had made a representation to the respondent/DDA to bring to their notice the aforesaid default on their part. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that being the sole surviving legal heir of the original registrant, the petitioner had stepped into the shoes of her parents and is entitled to claim allotment of the flat under the NPRS 1979.
6. Counsel for the respondent/DDA refutes the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the petitioner that DDA had mutated the name of the W.P.(C) No.6871/2009 Page 3 of 8 petitioner in its record. She draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated 7.10.2008 issued by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner to state that the said letter was addressed to the petitioner only for "refund purposes" and not for "reference purposes", as stated in the typed version of the said document placed by the petitioner at page 28 of the paper book. She states that the aforesaid letter dated 7.10.2008 cannot legally entitle the petitioner to claim fruition of the registration made in favour of her deceased father. She points out that this is a case where the original registrant had expired as long back as on 31.12.1991 and even if it is assumed that the respondent/DDA had committed an error in dispatching the correspondence to the deceased registrant only at his residential address and not at his occupational address, the same would not be of any consequence for the reason that by the time the allotment had matured and the demand-cum-allotment letter was dispatched by the respondent/DDA to the registrant in the year 2002, he had expired almost a decade before that on 31.12.1991 and no steps had been taken by his wife as his successor-in- interest to seek mutation of the registration in her favour. In fact the mother of the petitioner expired long thereafter, i.e., on 2.3.2008 and admittedly, even she did not approach DDA at any stage with a request for mutation of the registration in her favour right from the year 1991 when her husband expired, till her demise in the year 2008.
W.P.(C) No.6871/2009 Page 4 of 8
7. The Court finds force in the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the respondent/DDA. It is not denied by the petitioner that upon demise of her father on 31.12.1991, he was survived by his wife (mother of the petitioner) as his legal heir and that she did not take any steps whatsoever to approach the respondent/DDA for getting the registration mutated in her favour. It is also an undisputed fact that the mother of the petitioner expired on 2.3.2008, which was after a period of seventeen long years from the date of the demise of Late Amal Chandra Biswas and after a period of 6 years from the date of issuance of the demand-cum-allotment letter to the original registrant. It was only after the demise of the mother of the petitioner that it is alleged that the petitioner started to make efforts to locate papers for the registration and she sought to approach the respondent/DDA to intimate them about the death of the original registrant and also his wife and to inquire about the status of the allotment under the NPRS 1979.
8. The aforesaid explanation offered for approaching the Court so belatedly cannot cut any ice for the reason that it was incumbent on the part of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, i.e., her mother, to have approached the respondent/DDA within a reasonable period from the date of the demise of her husband for getting the registration mutated in her favour. However, no such steps were taken by her during her lifetime. W.P.(C) No.6871/2009 Page 5 of 8
9. Merely because the petitioner now claims that upon the demise of her mother in the year 2008, she had discovered some documents relating to the registration, that in itself cannot mean that she can approach the respondent/DDA at any odd time asking for mutation of the registration in her favour. Furthermore, a perusal of the letter dated 7.8.2010 addressed by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner which forms the basis of the claim of the petitioner that the respondent/DDA had carried out mutation of the registration in her favour, falsifies such a stand. Rather, a perusal of the original records produced by the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA, which contains the carbon duplicate of the letter dated 7.8.2010, bears out the submission of the counsel for the respondent/DDA that the said letter was issued calling upon the petitioner to furnish the necessary documents only for the purposes of refund and not for „reference purposes‟ as wrongly typed out in the typed version of the document placed by the petitioner at page 28 of the paper book.
10. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the successor-in- interest of the original registrant had not taken any steps to get the registration mutated in her name, the respondent/DDA is under an obligation to mutate the registration in the favour of the petitioner upon the demise of her mother.
W.P.(C) No.6871/2009 Page 6 of 8
11. The aforesaid argument is completely fallacious and liable to be turned down. It is not permissible for an applicant to keep sleeping over her rights for an inordinately long duration and wake up one fine morning to claim a statutory right against a Government authority. Both, the petitioner as also her deceased mother ought to have shown some diligence on their part to keep the registration of Late Amal Chandra Biswas alive. However, they have miserably failed to demonstrate that they were vigilant. It is pertinent to note that the NPRS 1979 in question was floated in the year 1979 and three decades have already passed and still the petitioner and many others like her keep approaching the Court seeking allotments under the said Scheme.
12. No doubt, delay and latches have been found to have occurred for genuine reasons in some cases pertaining to allotment of MIG Flats under the said Scheme right upto the year 2004, which also dates back to almost eight years, but such a situation cannot be permitted to continue forever. Every Housing Scheme that is floated by a Government agency has a life and timeline and it ought to exhaust itself thereafter. It is not that a successor-in-interest of an original registrant can rise from his/her slumber as per his/her convenience and approach the Court claiming to be a legal heir and thus seek entitlement to mutation of the registration in his/her favour. The present case is one such case where the Court declines to W.P.(C) No.6871/2009 Page 7 of 8 exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has failed to offer a just or a sufficient reason to explain the delay of about seventeen years in approaching the DDA with a request for mutation of the registration in her favour.
13. While disposing of the present writ petition, it is directed that henceforth, the Registry shall ensure that in all cases relating to relief sought in respect of registrations made under Housing Schemes floated by the DDA, at the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioners shall not only file typed copies of illegible documents, they shall also place on record the originals/carbon duplicates of such documents relied upon by them in so far as they relate to the correspondence exchanged by parties with the DDA so that the Court has the benefit of scrutinizing such documents and also to obviate any scope of misreading/misinterpretation of such documents, as has happened in the present case.
14. The petition is disposed of, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 13, 2012 JUDGE
sk
W.P.(C) No.6871/2009 Page 8 of 8