Delhi District Court
Ramesh Chand vs Dda on 19 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS SCJ 1445/19
CNR No. DLWT03-002643-2019
Sh. Ramesh Chand
S/o Sh. Asha Ram
Through Attorney
Smt. Santosh Bansal
W/o Sh. Ram Chand Bansal
R/o Presently at 371, Mansarover Park,
MIG DDA Flats, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. .... Plaintiff
VS
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan,
I.N.A Colony, New Delhi. ... Defendant
Date of filing : 18.01.1996
Date of judgment : 19.09.2023
JUDGMENT
1. PRAYER BY PLAINTIFF IN PLAINT:
1.1 The plaintiff has, by way of present suit, prayed for passing the decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its officials, workers, employees, agents or any other person claiming under their authority from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property or in any way interferring in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the plaintiff has also prayed for restraining the defendant from cancelling the allotment of suit property in the name of the plaintiff as it is threatened by letter dated 02.01.1996. Plaintiff CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.1 of 27 has also prayed for the costs in favour of the plaintiff.
2. AVERMENTS BY THE PLAINTIFF IN PLAINT
2.1 It is averred by the plaintiff in the plaint that plaintiff is the owner/allottee of Flat bearing No.371(MIG) DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi; the flat has been succeeded by the plaintiff through his father who died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff as his legal heir; initially the father of the plaintiff was allotted a flat bearing No. 37A (MIG) DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi vide file No. M030(42)/86MG/WP vide registration No.2097 dated 25.03.1988; the plaintiff made up-to-date payments and the property was allotted in the name of Sh. Asha Ram, father of the plaintiff in its records; Shri Asha Ram died on 21.12.1986.
2.2 It is further averred by the plaintiff that after the death of Sh. Asha Ram, the mother of the plaintiff namely Smt. Jai Devi applied for the transfer of allotment in her name; the defendant after completing the formalities transferred and mutated the property in the name of Smt. Jai Devi which stood in her name till her life time; Smt. Jai Devi got expired on 13.05.1989; after the death of the recorded allottee i.e. Smt. Jai Devi, the plaintiff approached the defendant for transfer of allotment of 37A (MIG) DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi in his name; the defendant took undue long period to complete the formalities and by ignoring the rights of the plaintiff in the said flat illegally transferred the said flat in favour of a third person for reasons best known to defendant.
CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.2 of 27 2.3 It is further averred by the plaintiff that plaintiff protested the illegal transfer and allotment of his flat in the name of a third person who was illegally put in possession by the officials of the defendant; the defendant considered the complaint and appreciated the grievance of the plaintiff and accepted the fault and irregularity made by the office and vide their letter dated 07.06.1994 requested the plaintiff to accept the Flat No. 371 in lieu of the earlier Flat No. 37-A on the same terms and conditions; since the plaintiff had no option, the defendant prevailed upon him and compelled him to accept the flat so allotted in his favour; since the date of its allotment, the flat in question i.e. 371 Mansarover Park, DDA Flats, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032 i.e. suit property stands in the name of plaintiff who is enjoying the same as its true owner/allottee; defendant vide its letter dated 06.07.1994 confirmed the allotment of the flat in the name of the plaintiff; the letter was signed by the Assistant Director of the DDA; after the allotment of the letter, the concerned officials of the DDA handed over the vacant possession of the flat in question to the plaintiff on 20.08.1994 along with the fittings and fixtures and got signatures of the plaintiff on the inventory prepared for the purpose; the said inventory was duly signed by the concerned official of the defendant who gave the possession of the flat along with the fittings and fixtures.
2.4 It is further averred by the plaintiff that at the time of handing over the possession with fittings and fixtures, the concerned J.E of the defendant also gave a slip (possession slip) confirming the lawful allotment and handed over the possession to the plaintiff; the defendant vide its letter dated 06.07.1994 CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.3 of 27 acknowledging the rights of the plaintiff gave a certificate to enable the plaintiff to avail the electricity and water connections in his name; since then the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property as its lawful owner and allottee without any hinderance or objection by the DDA or any other person; the instalments of the balance consideration paid by the plaintiff are being accepted by the defendant who issued proper receipts for the same; after the allotment of the flat in the name of plaintiff, the defendant adopted the policy of liberalization and invited applications to transfer the flats to the allottees or attorneys on ownership basis after completing certain formalities; the defendant agreed to get the properties freehold; the plaintiff with this intention agreed to transfer his said flat to Smt. Santosh Bansal W/o Sh. Ram Chand Bansal and executed an agreement to sell on 13.10.1994 thereby agreed to transfer the said flat in her favour subject to sanction and permission of the defendant.
2.5 It is further averred by the plaintiff that plaintiff was shocked to receive a notice dated 02.01.1996 in which the plaintiff was termed as an unauthorised occupant; the defendant further claimed that no valid allotment has been made in the name of the plaintiff; the said letter was received by the plaintiff on 03.01.1996 who immediately on 04.01.1996 rushed to the office of the defendant and produced all the letters/documents of title executed by the DDA in his favour; the official concerned after satisfying himself agreed to withdraw the said letter which was wrongly issued; the plaintiff was satisfied that the purpose of sending the impugned notice stands satisfied; the defendant accepted the right of the plaintiff to the suit property and assured that the plaintiff shall remain the lawful allottee and occupant of CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.4 of 27 the flat in question; on 12.11.1996, two persons claiming themselves to be the officials of the defendant visited the suit property in the absence of the plaintiff and threatened the persons available there that the plaintiff is unauthorised occupant of the property and further threatened that they will come with force and shall forcibly evict the plaintiff; the plaintiff has paid the installments of the consideration of the property which has been accepted by the defendant from time to time which was accepted; DDA acknowledged the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property; the officials of the defendant instead of withdrawing the notice dated 02.01.1996, have now started threatening to illegally dispossess the plaintiff which is unwarranted and against the law.
3. PRAYER BY THE DEFENDANT/DDA IN W.S. 3.1 Defendant/DDA has filed the written statement in the present case praying dismissal of the suit with costs.
4. AVERMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT 4.1 It is averred by the defendant that plaintiff is seeking declaration in the grab of injunction and suit is not maintainable for want of notice U/S 53-B of DD Act; relief claimed by plaintiff can not be claimed without declaration of right to the flat which has never been allotted and thus the plaintiff is virtually seeking declaration in the garb of suit for injunction; plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands as he has suppressed the material facts and Flat No.371 has never been allotted either to him or to his father and therefore his conduct disentitles him from any relief of equity from this Court; the plaintiff is trying to CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.5 of 27 mislead the Court by producing the forged and fictitious documents regarding allotment of flat in question which has never been allotted by DDA.
4.2 It is further averred by the defendant that Flat No.371, MIG, Mansarover Park, Shahdara has never been allotted by DDA to him or to his father as alleged in the plaint; flat bearing No.371 which is flat in dispute has never been allotted to any one by DDA ever so far; all the documents including communications between DDA and his father in respect of the said flat bearing No.371 are forged and fraudulent; Flat No. 37A was allotted and mutated in the name of Smt. Jai Devi which has been cancelled later on due to breach of terms and conditions; however, Flat No.371 has never been allotted to any one; no demand has ever been raised in respect of Flat No.371 and if the plaintiff has deposited any amount at his own that is always wihout prejudice to the rights of DDA; regarding the fact of death of Sh. Asha Ram, the same is denied for want of knowledge and plaintiff is put to the proof of the same; Flat No.37A was cancelled in the name of Smt. Jai Devi and re- allotted to one Sh. Kartar Singh who has also been handed over the physical possession of the same after completing the formalities; the allegations against DDA are totally wrong and denied; it is totally wrong and denied that plaintiff was ever asked to accept the Flat No. 371 and all the documents produced by the plaintiff are forged and bogus; an eviction notice dated 02.01.1996 was issued and FIR was lodged with the Police Station Mansarover Park; Sh. A.K Sharma, Assistant Director and Sh. Daya Chand, Dealing Assistant are already placed under suspension in the matter for connivance.
CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.6 of 27 4.3 It is further averred by the defendant that Flat No.371 has never been allotted nor any possession has been handed over by DDA and the said flat is still unallotted; it has also been verified by the answering defendant from its dispatch record that no such letter dated 06.07.1994 was depatched by DDA; the Flat No.371 has never been allotted either to plaintiff or his father and said flat is still unallotted; the plaintiff is in unauthorised occupation of the Government property pertaining to the answering defendant and eviction notice has already been issued; only lawful allottee or attorney holders can get the flats converted in the free hold but in the instant case, plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the flat in question because neither he is allottee nor attorney holder rather he has forged the documents in his name and the flat in question has never been allotted either to plaintiff or his father; an FIR has already been lodged in the Police Station Mansarover Park and eviction notice was issued to the unauthorised occupant.
5. REPLICATION TO THE W.S. OF DEFENDANT/DDA 5.1 Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendant inter-alia submitting that the plaintiff is the allottee/owner of the flat and has filed copy of the title documents, executed by the defendant in his favour; the defendant has failed to prove any document confirming the averments made in the written statement or any other document rebutting the documents of title filed by the plaintiff; it is denied that the suit property i.e. Flat No.371 had never been allotted; it is submitted that the flat in question No. 37A had been allotted to CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.7 of 27 the father of the plaintiff who died on 21.12.1986; subsequently, DDA vide his communication dated 25.09.1989 cancelled the allotment standing in the name of Smt. Jai Devi i.e. mother of the plaintiff and subsequently, vide their communication dated 07.06.1994 allotted the suit property in favour of the plaintiff; the suit property was allotted in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of the earlier allotment made in the name of the father of the plaintiff/mother of the plaintiff; the possession of the flat had been handed over to the plaintiff on 20.08.1994; since the allotment of the flat, the plaintiff is in use and occupation of the property as its owner without any objection by the defendant or any other person.
5.2 It is further averred by the plaintiff that it is denied that the plaintiff is trying to mislead this Court; the flat was allotted in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property; the alleged FIR does not relate to the plaintiff; no particulars of the FIR have been disclosed nor copy of the same has been supplied to the plaintiff to effectually deal with the allegations and make a suitable reply; it is denied that flat in question had not been allotted to plaintiff; the documents executed by the defendant and provided to the plaintiff are genuine documents which establish the legal rights of the plaintiff; the re-allotment in the name of Sh. Kartar Singh illegal; the cancellation of allotment in the name of Smt. Jai Devi was improper; it is denied that the letter dated 06.07.1994 had never been dispatched by the DDA; the defendant is trying to take advantage of its wrongs or omissions and intend to deprive the plaintiff from his lawful rights; it is denied that any FIR has been lodged against the plaintiff or any eviction notice has been CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.8 of 27 issued or served upon the plaintiff; the defendant has no right to issue notice to the plaintiff who is a lawful allottee/owner of the flat in question; the suit property belongs to the plaintiff; the suit property has been allotted to the plaintiff which is in his lawful possession; the plaintiff can not be termed as encroacher.
6 ISSUES FRAMED 6.1 On the basis of pleadings, submissions and material on record, following issues were framed by the Court:-
I) Whether the suit is barred for want of notice U/S 53B of DD Act?OPD
ii) Whether the plaintiff or his father was never allotted Flat No. 371, MIG Flat, DDA Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi? OPD
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP
iv) Relief.
7. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE 7.1 PW1 Sh. Shyam Lal Singh, J.E, E.D II 1, Dilshad Garden Delhi was examined who relied upon possession slip Ex.PW1/1, inventory of fittings Ex.PW1/2, allotment letter Ex.PW1/3.
Thereafter, PW1 was cross examined at length.
7.2 Thereafter, PW2 Sh. P.C Saxena, UDC, House Tax Department, MCD was examined and he brought the assessment file of Flat No.371, Mansarover Park Shahdara, Delhi and filed CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.9 of 27 the copy of the rectification U/S 176 DMC Act Ex.PW2/1.
Thereafter, PW2 was discharged.
7.3 Thereafter, PW3 Sh. R.M Bansal was also examined and relied upon the documents i.e. attorney of Smt. Santosh Bansal of the plaintiff vide SPA dated 06.07.2010 Ex.PW3/1(OSR); the deposit receipt Ex.PW3/2; letter Ex.PW3/3, Death certificate of Late Sh. Asha Ram Ex.PW3/4; the letter of DDA dated 19.07.1988 Ex.PW3/5; death certificate of Smt. Jai Devi Ex.PW3/6; cancellation of the allotment vide letter dated 25.09.1989 Ex.PW3/7; the letter of defendant dated 07.06.1994 Ex.PW3/8; the demand letter dated 28.06.1994 bearing No.30(42)90/MSNP and authority letter to obtain water and electricity connections and allotment letter and possession slip and inventory of fixtures and challan of payment Ex.PW3/9, letter of DDA dated 06.07.1994 Ex.PW3/10, allotment letter dated 06.07.1994 Ex.PW3/11, possession slip dated 20.08.1994 Ex.PW3/12, letter dated 20.08.1994 Ex.PW3/13, letter dated 20.08.1994 Ex.PW3/14, letter dated 13.09.1995 Ex.PW3/15, letter dated 21.06.1989 Ex.PW3/17; payment of receipt Ex.PW3/18; receipt of water Ex.PW3/19 and receipt of house tax Ex.PW3/20 and show cause notice Ex.PW3/21; however, the documents mentioned as Ex.PW3/17 to Ex.PW3/20 were not on the Court record and same were not exhibited.
Thereafter, PW3 was cross examined at length.
7.4 Thereafter P.E was closed vide order dated 15.11.2011.
CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.10 of 27
8. DEFENDANT /DDA EVIDENCE 8.1 Defendant examined DW1 Mr. M.C Joshi, Assistant Director, MIG Housing, DDA and he relied upon the documents i.e. written complaint lodged by the defendant/DDA with P.S Mansarover Park on 12.01.1996 Ex.DW1/1; show cause notice issued to Sh. Ramesh Chand/Plaintiff Ex.DW1/2, letter written to Estate Officer for eviction proceedings under PP Act on 12.01.1996 Ex.DW1/3, copy of memorandum Ex.DW1/4, letter written to Joint Commissioner (Police)E.O.W on 22.11.2010 Ex.DW1/5 and letter dated 16.12.2011 to Estate Officer (East Zone) Ex.DW1/6. (objected to qua Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/4 on the mode of proof since only the photocopies were available in the departmental file).
Thereafter, DW1 was cross examined at length.
8.2 DW2 Sh. Dharam Veer Singh, Assistant Director, MIG Housing Branch DDA relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/6.
Theareafter, DW2 was cross examined at length.
8.3 Thereafter, defendant evidence was closed.
9. FINAL ARGUMENTS 9.1 This court has heard the final arguments advanced and this court has also gone through the entire pleadings, documents filed, testimonies on record, case law relied upon, written arguments and the material on record.
CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.11 of 27 It is pertinent to mention that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff which was dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge vide judgment dated 01.02.2016 with the costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in DLSA (West). The plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and order, filed the appeal before the Ld. Appellate Court which was decided vide judgment dated 06.08.2019 whereby the appeal was allowed with direction to the Ld. trial Court to further examine PW1 Sh. Shyam Lal Singh, J.E and further directed to decide Issue No.2 and Issue No.3 afresh. As such, this Court has to decide the Issue No.2 and Issue No.3 only afresh.
10. ANALYSIS FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO.2 AND 3 10.1 Perusal of plaint shows that the plaintiff has by way of present suit, sought the permanent injunction against the DDA restraining it from dispossessing him from the suit property or in any way interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property. Moreover, the plaintiff has also prayed for restraining the defendant from cancelling the allotment of suit property in the name of plaintiff.
10.2 As such, the plaintiff has claimed two relief i.e. restraining dispossession by defendant and secondly, restraining cancellation of allotment of suit property in his name.
10.3 Perusal of plaint shows that he has claimed that his father Sh. Asha Ram was allotted Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi vide File No. CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.12 of 27 M030(42)86/MU/vide registration No. 2097 dated 25.03.1988 and thereafter, after the death of his father, the aforementioned flat was transferred by the defendant in the name of Smt. Jai Devi i.e. mother of plaintiff and the same remained in her till her death i.e. 13.05.1989.
10.4 Further claim of the plaintiff is that after the death of Smt. Jai Devi, he approached the defendant for transfer of allotment of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi in his name but defendant illegally transferred the said flat in favour of a third person and possession thereof was given to such third person. Later on, defendant accepted this irregularity and vide letter dated 07.06.1994 requested plaintiff to accept the Flat No.371 in lieu of the Flat No.37A on the same terms and conditions and the Flat No.371 was accepted by the plaintiff. Plaintiff also claims that vide its letter dated 06.07.1994, defendant confirmed the allotment in the name of plaintiff. Thereafter, officials of DDA handed over the vacant possession of Flat No. 371 to plaintiff on 20.08.1994 along with fittings and fixtures and possession slip.
10.5 It is also claimed that defendant vide letter dated 06.07.1994 gave a certificate to avail the electricity and water connection in his name.
10.6 As such, the plaintiff has claimed in the plaint that he is the owner of Flat No.371, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi as the same was allotted to him in lieu of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.13 of 27 10.7 Perusal of written statement filed by defendant/DDA shows that the defendant/DDA has not disputed the allotment of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi to Sh. Asha Ram i.e. father of plaintiff. Moreover, the transfer of such Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi in the name of Smt. Jai Devi is also not disputed by the defendant but the claim of the defendant is that such Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi was cancelled by the defendant due to contravention of terms and conditions.
10.8 Perusal of replication shows that in pargraph No.5, the plaintiff has specifically admitted the cancellation of such allotment in the name of Smt. Jai Devi vide letter dated 15.09.1989.
10.9 As such, this fact of cancellation of allotment of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi was not disclosed by the plaintiff and he merely stated that there was undue delay on the part of defendant in change of ownership from his mother to him and the Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi was illegally allotted to a third party.
10.10 As such, the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts in the plaint itself as although in the plaint, he has admitted that Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi was not transferred in his name but he concealed the fact of cancellation of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.14 of 27 Delhi in the name of Smt. Jai Devi.
10.11 Undoubtedly, this fact is material fact as the suit property i.e. Flat No.371, MIG , Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi is being claimed by the plaintiff only on the basis of such Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
10.12 In the considered view of this Court, if the plaintiff is not able to prove his right, title or interest in the Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi, he can not be entitled to suit property also.
10.13 Since the plaintiff has admitted in the replication that such Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi was cancelled, the point to be considered by the Court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to Flat No.371, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi despite cancellation of such Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
10.14 Perusal of record shows that the plaintiff has relied upon the documents issued by the defendant/DDA but the claim of the DDA/defendant is that these documents are forged documents and plaintiff got these documents issued in connivance with some officials of the defendant. It is also claimed by defendant that an FIR was also lodged against the plaintiff and some officers and officials of defendant/DDA for such connivance.
CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.15 of 27 10.15 Since the cancellation of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi is not disputed by the plaintiff in the replication, now the point is whether the plaintiff was entitled to Flat No.371, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi despite such cancellation of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
10.16 Perusal of record shows that the plaintiff has claimed that since the irregularity and illegality committed by the defendant was admitted by defendant qua cancellation of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi, the Flat No.371, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi was allotted to him in lieu of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
10.17 The issue No.2 is whether plaintiff or his father was never allotted Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi. Perusal of record shows that in the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed that his father was allotted Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi and after the death of his father, it was transferred to Smt. Jai Devi i.e. mother of plaintiff. These facts have not disputed by the defendant in its written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiff has claimed in the plaint that after the death his mother, he applied for change of ownership in his own name but it was delayed by the defendant and ultimately DDA/defendant illegally transferred it to the third person. On the other hand, the defendant has admitted the transfer of such Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi to the third person but has claimed that defendant has already cancelled the Flat No.37-A, CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.16 of 27 MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi in the name of Smt. Jai Devi legally as there was some breach of terms and conditions.
10.18 On the other hand, in his replication, plaintiff as admitted the cancellation of such Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi in the name of Smt. Jai Devi but it was claimed by the plaintiff that it was cancelled arbitrarily and illegally.
10.19 As such, the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts in the plaint itself whereas it is the settled law that plaintiff must approach the Court with clean hands and must disclose all the relevant and material facts. Undoubtedly, this fact of cancellation of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi in the name of Smt. Jai Devi is a material fact as the claim of plaintiff in the present suit is totally dependent upon ownership of mother of plaintiff. If Smt. Jai Devi is not having any right, title or interest in the Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi, the plaintiff also can not have any relief in respect of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi or any relief on the basis of such Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
10.20 Perusal of plaint shows that the plaintiff has claimed that after illegal and arbitrary transfer of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi in the name of third person, defendant realized its mistake and offered the Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi to CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.17 of 27 the plaintiff and the plaintiff had to accept it.
10.21 As such, the claim of the plaintiff in the plaint is that Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi was allotted but he has not disclosed the fact of cancellation of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi by the defendant and disclosed it only in replication. As such, allegation of the plaintiff in replication is that although it was cancelled by the defendant but illegally and arbitrarily. The replication shows that the plaintiff has not given the details how the cancellation of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi was arbitrary and illegal. Although, plaintiff has claimed that he pursued the matter with defendant qua illegal and arbitrary cancellation of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi in the name of Smt. Jai Devi but record shows that no such correspondence has been placed on record and proved that he claimed in such correspondence that Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi was illegally and arbitrarily cancelled by the defendant. Moreover, there is nothing concrete on record to suggest that the defendant admitted in any document that such cancellation was illegal. Besides, there is no admission by defendant that Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi was allotted by defendant as there was illegal cancellation of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi. As such, the claim of plaintiff qua cancellation of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi being illegal is mere bald averment. When the plaintiff's own mother i.e. Smt. Jai Devi ceased to have any right, title and interest in Flat No.37-A, CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.18 of 27 MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi how the plaintiff or any other person claiming through Smt. Jai Devi may have any title, right or interest in Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi. And when there is no right, title or interest in Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi existed in favour of plaintiff, how can he claim any right, title or interest in another flat on the basis of such Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
10.22 Moreover, perusal of plaint shows that the plaintiff has claimed in the plaint that plaintiff is the owner/allottee of Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi by way of inheritance as his father Sh. Asha Ram was allottee/owner.
10.23 The plaintiff has also disclosed in plaint that initially, father of plaintiff was allotted Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi but lateron, he was given Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi in lieu of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
10.24 In paragraph No. 5 of plaint, he has claimed that vide letter dated 07.06.1994 defendant offered Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi in lieu of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi which was accepted by him.
10.25 In paragraph No. 6, plaintiff has averred that since CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.19 of 27 the date of allotment, Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi is in the name of plaintiff who is enjoying the same as its true owner/allottee.
10.26 In paragraph No.7, it is claimed by plaintiff that vide letter dated 06.07.1994, defendant confirmed the allotment and on 20.08.1994, plaintiff was given the vacant possession of flat along with fittings, possession slip etc. 10.27 As such, perusal of plaint shows that plaintiff has claimed that he became the owner of Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi from the date of allotment. Perusal of allotment letter as filed on record by the plaintiff is dated 06.07.1994. As per possession slip placed on record by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/1, the plaintiff was given physical possession of Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi on 20.08.1994. As such, as per the claim of the plaintiff in the plaint itself, he is in the possession of Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi since 20.08.1994.
10.28 The present suit was filed on 18.01.1996 for permanent injunction against the defendant on the ground that plaintiff received a Notice dated 02.01.1996 in which plaintiff was termed as unauthorised occupant as no valid allotment was made in favour of plaintiff.
10.29 In paragraph No. 13 of plaintiff, it is claimed by the plaintiff that such Notice was given to the plaintiff on 03.01.1996 who immeditely rushed to defendant on 04.01.1996 along with CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.20 of 27 document and official concerned agreed to withdraw such Notice.
10.30 The further claim of the plaintiff is that on 12.01.1996, two persons claiming to be officials of defendant visited the suit property in the absence of plaintiff and threatened eviction being unauthorised occupant. The plaintiff specifically claimed in the plaint that Notice dated 02.01.1996 has not been withdrawn by defendant despite assurance.
10.31 Perusal of plaint shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Sh. Ramesh Chand through his attorney Smt. Santosh Bansal W/o Sh. Ram Chand Bansal and it is also signed and verified by Smt. Santosh Bansal. Moreover, replication filed in the year 1999 is also signed and verified by Smt. Santosh Bansal.
10.32 Perusal of plaint shows that the address of plaintiff mentioned is that of the suit property i.e. Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi. As such, when the present suit was filed, the plaintiff has claimed that he was residing at Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi. Present suit was filed on 18.01.1996 and plaintiff has claimed that such threat of dispossession was given by official of defendant on 12.01.1996. As such, the claim of plaintiff in the plaint is that he was in possession on 12.01.1996 when such threat was extended.
10.33 Perusal of testimony of PW3 Sh. Ram Chand Bansal who is attorney of attorney Smt. Santosh Bansal, has deposed during the cross examination that GPA Ex.PW3/1 was executed CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.21 of 27 by Sh. Ramesh Chand in favour of Smt. Santosh Bansal and it was not under any love and affection. Moreover, PW3 has admitted that he has not filed any receipt regarding the consideration of such GPA. Moreover, he evaded the question by deposing that he does not remember whether he has filed any receipt qua payment against purchase of property.
10.34 As such, the PW3 has not specifically denied the selling of the Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi to Smt. Santosh Bansal by plaintiff Sh. Ramesh Chand. Moreover, during cross examination PW3 has specifically admitted that such show cause notice in question was affixed on his house and he later on specifically admitted that Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi is in his possession and also admitted that he was in possession of Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi when the Notice dated 02.01.1996 was affixed on the suit property. As such, it is admitted by PW3 that although the show cause notice dated 02.01.1996 was in the name of Sh. Ramesh Chand but he was in possession of the suit property even that point of time i.e. 03.01.1996.
10.35 GPA filed by the plaintiff shows that it is dated 13.10.1994 and in favour of Smt. Santosh Bansal executed by Sh. Ramesh Chand. As such, the documents filed by the plaintiff themselves show that Sh. Ramesh Chand had already executed the attorney in favour of Smt. Santosh Bansal prior to filing of present suit. There is no another attorney filed by Smt. Santosh Bansal executed by Sh. Ramesh Chand for the purpose of filing present suit.
CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.22 of 27 10.36 But these material facts were never disclosed by the plaintiff or the attorney in the plaint that the suit property i.e. Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi has already been sold out by Sh. Ramesh Chand in favour of Smt. Santosh Bansal and also about the taking over the physical possession by Smt. Santosh Bansal and his husband i.e. Sh. Ram Chand Bansal at the time of filing of present suit. Moreover, plaint itself shows that plaintiff has not claimed that such threat of dispossession was extended by officials of defendant in the presence of Sh. Ramesh Chand on 12.01.1996. This fact also ratifies the fact that Sh. Ramesh Chand was not in possession of Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi when such threat of dispossession was extended. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff or her attorney Smt. Santosh Bansal has not come to the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts.
10.37 Moreover, it is not the case of Smt. Santosh Bansal in the plaint that suit property was sold out to her and she has filed the present suit as subsequent purchaser of suit property. Moreover, it is also not the case of Smt. Santosh Bansal during the cross examination that Sh. Ramesh Chand is still in the possession of property and he never transferred the suit property to Smt. Santosh Bansal.
10.38 As far as the documents placed on record by the plaintiff i.e. offer letter, allotment letter, possession slip, inventory and receipts of payment are concerned, letter dated 07.06.1994 itself shows that Flat No.371A, MIG , DDA Flats, CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.23 of 27 Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi has been mentioned whereas the claim of the plaintiff is in respect of Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi. Moreover, it is does not mention that defendant has admitted the illegality in respect of cancellation of Flat No.37-A, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
10.39 Moreover, no explanation has been given by the plaintiff in the plaint as to why it is mentioned 371A instead of
371. Moreover, it is not claimed that it was clerical mistake on the part of the defendant. No record has been proved to show that plaintiff got it rectified later on by the defendant. Surprisingly, in allotment letter dated 07.07.1994, Ex.PW1/3, Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi has been mentioned instead of 371A. No plausible explantion has been given on this aspect. This aspect also casts doubt over the documents placed by the plaintiff.
10.40 Documents such as possession slip, inventory, etc. have been admitted to have been executed by the PW1 Sh. Shyam Lal, the then J.E but he has not proved the allotment letter as he has not admitted the signature thereon and he has specifically deposed that he does not know whether actual allotment was done to the plaintiff or not. He showed his ignorance qua correctness of Ex.PW1/3 i.e. allotment letter. Moreover, he has specifically admitted that he did not verify from department concerned about the genuineness of the allotment and merely gave the vacant possession of Flat No.371, MIG , DDA Flats, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi to the plaintiff as he received the copy of allotment letter and CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.24 of 27 possession slip from Executive Engineer through Assistant Engineer.
10.41 As such, none has proved the allotment letter which could have been proved by examining the officer concerned i.e. who issued such offer letter and allotment i.e. Sh. Ashok Kumar. Although plaintiff examined the then Jr. Engineer Sh. Shyam Lal as PW1 but plaintiff evaded the examination of Assistant Director Sh. Ashok Kumar for the reasons best known to the plaintiff.
10.42 Moreover, the specific claim of the defendant in the plaint is that plaintiff in collusion of the officers and officials of defendant obtained such documents in his favour and defendant has also filed criminal complaint against such officers and has specifically stated that Assistant Director Sh. Ashok Kumar and Dealing Clerk Mr. Daya Chand were suspended also for such an fraudulent act. Defendant has also claimed that FIR was also directed to be filed against Mr. Ramesh Chand for such forgery with collusion of officers of defendant. DW1 and DW2 i.e. present Assistant Directors have placed on record several documents to prove the action taken the defendant as claimed in written statement.
10.43 During the cross examination, PW3 initially although denied to have knowledge of such criminal action but later on admitted that the anticipatory bail was taken against such criminal action.
10.44 As such, the present case is that the such documents were issued by the erring officers misusing their positions and CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.25 of 27 with the collusion of the plaintiff. Furthermore, it is the case of the defendant that the no valid allotment was done qua Flat No.371 in favour of the defendant. In the considered view of this Court, illegal act done by an officer of Government can not be binding upon the whole department merely on the ground that it was signed by the public servant. A document is valid only when the same were signed by the public servant after following the due procedure and rules. A person does not became entitled to any right, title or interest if any officer grants such right illegally and unauthorizedly. If such practice is allowed, there would a chaos and the corruption would be rampant. As such, even if it is assumed that such documents were issued by such erring officials, it can not be termed as valid documents. Moreover, although possession slip, inventory etc. are proved by PW1 Mr. Shyam Lal Singh the then Jr. Engineer yet allotment letter was not proved. And even if it had been proved by the then Assistant Director, it would have no consequence for the reasons as above.
10.45 Moreover, plaintiff Sh. Ramesh Chand as well his attorney Smt. Santosh Bansal have not entered into the witness box. Instead, husband of Sh. Santosh Bansal i.e. Sh. Ram Chand Bansal has entered into the witness box in place of them who is not having the personal knowledge of facts occurred prior to issuance of GPA by Sh. Ramesh Chand in favour of Sh. Santosh Bansal. PW3 can not depose the facts about cancellation of allotment of Flat No.37A arbitrarily and illegally and issuance of office letter in lieu of Falt No.37A. It is not the case of PW3 that he was present with Mr. Ramesh during that point of time also.
CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.26 of 27 10.46 In view of above discussion, Issue No.2 and 3 are decided in favour of defendant against the plaintiff.
10.47 Plaintiff has relied upon certain case law but it does not assist the plaintiff for the exhaustive reasons as above and well settled proposition of law and peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. RELIEF:-
11.1 In view of the discussion, as above and well settled proposition of law as discussed earlier and finding on issue No.2 and issue No. 3, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
11.2 In view thereof, suit is dismissed. Interim stay, if any, granted in the present matter, is vacated.
11.3 File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 19th September, 2023 (This judgment contains 27 pages) (Ajay Nagar) Senior Civil Judge, West District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.27 of 27 CS SCJ 1445/19 Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority Page No.28 of 27