Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

An eligible applicant may submit separate application (s) accompanies with Registration Money for other category(s) of plot in clause 1, but he/she will be entitled for allotment of only one plot under this scheme. If an applicant is successful in the draw of lots for more than one plot he/she will have to surrender rest of the plot(s) within the time prescribed by Chief Executive Office, NOIDA.
Incomplete application and applications without enclosures as mentioned above for allotment of specific plot shall not be registered. Therefore, the applicants are requested to submit complete application form in all respect alongwith the required enclosures and requisite amount of registration money for registration.
(vii) The required notarized affidavit on prescribe proforma was not enclosed.
(viii) The application which was mandatorily required to be accompanied with a/c payee crossed 'demand draft' or 'pay order' of registration amount did not accompany with any demand draft or pay order rather was accompanied by an antedated cheque.

12. As per the terms and conditions of brochure for allotment of residential plots under the scheme, mentioned above the application was mandatorily required to be complete in all respects such the duly attested signatures, photograph etc. and accompanied with all the enclosures viz., a/c payee demand draft/ pay order, requisite certificate of employment from personal department and notarized affidavit in prescribed proforma. In clause 3 of the brochure it has been clearly mentioned that an incomplete application or applications without enclosures shall not be registered. Therefore since the application of appellant was undisputedly incomplete on various counts as mentioned above, it could not have been registered or considered for allotment of plot and ought to have been rejected being not eligible for registration and legally no allotment of plot could have been made on such a defective application.

13. The evidence on record shows that the application form of appellant was not in the list of applications, which applications were sent to bank along with demand drafts and the entry of application form and cheque number of appellant were added subsequently by different person when hurriedly and surreptitiously the incomplete undated application of appellant, the then CCEO of Noida was moved with an antedated cheque. The fact of sending appellant's cheque for collection on 28.3.1994, after seven days of collection of amount of demand drafts in respect of other applications, is not disputed and addition of appellant's application in register also proves and confirms the correctness of prosecution case regarding moving of undated application with antedated cheque after closure of scheme. The arguments advanced on behalf of appellant that her cheque appears to have not been sent for collection till 28.3.1994 due to some mistake of official, has no force.