Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. It is stated that the defendant no.2 Sh. Roshan Lal got himself registered for a Janta flat under General Housing scheme -1976 under reserve category (S.C.) through registration application no. 46278 dated 31.05.1976. The DDA issued registration certificate No. 909 and FDR No.2988 dated 31.05.1976. Thereafter, defendant no.2 was declared successful and allotted flat No. 7-C, JG-III, Block Bodella, Vikas Puri under Housing General Scheme by the defendant/DDA and the demand letter No. F.19 (158)/84/Jata/9.4.84 was issued to defendant no.2. Since the defendant no.2 CS No. 13/17/97 (New No.8109/16) Bharat Bhushan Saraf &Anr. vs. DDA & Ors. 8/40 Sh.Roshan Lal had not made the payment, the said flat was cancelled due to non-payment. The flat No. 173-B, JG-III, Block Vikas Puri was originally allotted to the registrant Sh.Subhash Chander through a draw of lots held on 27.01.1992 and the allotment-cum-demand letter was issued to the said Sh. Subhash Chander on 25/30 th Nov. 1992. Sh.Subhash Chander on receipt of the demand letter made the payment of initial deposit, meanwhile Sh.Subhash Chander expired on 24.03.1993 and his wife Smt. Mohini Devi @ Moni Devi applied for mutation of flat in her name and also deposited the requisite documents with the DDA as completion of formalities. Based on documents by her flat No. 173-B, JG-III Block, Vikas Puri was mutated by the DDA in the name of said Smt. Mohini Devi and possession letter dated 24.10.1994 was also issued from file No. J-19/(7)92/VP.

CS No. 13/17/97 (New No.8109/16) Bharat Bhushan Saraf &Anr. vs. DDA & Ors. 16/40 These documents were handed over to him by the defendant no.6. He had verified the issuance of documents Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/7 in the records of DDA before purchasing the suit flat which were available in the file. He denied the suggestion that documents Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/7 were not in the file of DDA.

34. PW1 Sh. Bharat Bhushan Saraf in his cross- examination further deposed that he is not aware of the fact that the suit flat was allotted in favour of Sh. Subhash Chander by the DDA on 27.01.1992 through the draw of lots on the said date. He denied the suggestion that he was informed by the DDA that said flat stands mutated in the name of Smt. Mohini Devi W/o Sh. Subhash Chander the allottee of the flat who was subsequently expired. He denied the suggestion that he was duly informed by the DDA that allotment in respect of the said flat stood in the name of Sh.Subhash Chander and subsequently mutated in favour of his wife Smt. Mohini Devi. He denied that the allotment file pertaining to defendant no.2 had been closed by the DDA after the cancellation of allotment in his favour in the year 1984. He denied that no changes have been made in the record of DDA since 24.10.1994 as that flat in dispute was never alloted to defendant no.2. He denied that defendant no. 3 to 6 and he himself are not the bonafide purchaser of the suit property. He denied that no threat was extended by the official of defendant no. 1 on 24.10.1997 for taking the forcible possession of the suit property. He further denied the suggestion that no notice was required to be sent to the plaintif before cancellation of allotment in favour of defendant no.2 in respect of the suit flat. He denied that DDA CS No. 13/17/97 (New No.8109/16) Bharat Bhushan Saraf &Anr. vs. DDA & Ors. 17/40 was not required to follow any procedure before cancellation of the suit flat. He denied that since no allotment was made in favour of defendant no.2 hence there was no requirement of cancellation of the suit flat. He denied that he is not the bonafide purchaser of the suit property. He denied that there was any requirement by the DDA to sent him any notice before taking any action in respect of the cancellation of the suit property. He admitted that the documents Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/7 were not executed in his presence by the DDA. He further admitted that letter Ex. PW1/8 signed by defendant no.2 has also not been executed in his presence. He admitted that documents Ex. PW1/12 to PW1/35 were not executed or signed in his presence but he received the same from defendant no.6. He cannot identify signature of the executant of documents Ex. PW1/9 to Ex. PW1/35. He did not know how documents Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/8 were delivered to defendant no.2. He denied the suggestion that these letters are manufactured and forged by defendant no.2 in connivance with some other people. He denied that allotment and subsequent possession for the suit flat has been fraudulently obtained by defendant no.2. He had appeared before Investigating Officer on receiving the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. from PS Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi and he filed the reply to the same. He admitted that the suit flat was allotted on hire purchase basis. He denied the suggestion that the sale in respect of the suit flat by defendant nos. 2 to 6 were illegal as none of the defendants had no title to the suit flat.

58. It is pertinent to mention here that the alleged allotment is dated 24.08.1994 and possession was alleged to be taken on 09.09.1994 and above alleged sale transaction took place within 15 days. It is quite unnatural conduct that when a person get the allotment and possession of a DDA flat within 15 days. Same has been transferred to Sh. Raju Aggarwal. As per Ex. PW1/19, GPA of Sh. Raju Aggarwal in favour of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, Deed of Will Ex. PW1/20, SPA Ex. PW1/21, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW1/22 and receipt of Rs.35,000/- Ex. PW1/23. All documents are dated 01.03.1995 except deed of Will which is dated 02.03.1995. All the documents are of similar nature as of Sh. Roshan Lal. All the documents are not witnesses by any witness. The receipt Ex. PW1/23 is not signed by the purchaser as acceptance. All are notarized except deed of Will Ex. PW1/20 which is registered having two witnesses, one Sh. Raj Kumar and other Sh.R.R. Dogra, Advocate. It establish that the documents of Sh.Roshan Lal and now the documents of Sh. Raju Aggarwal also prepared by Advocate Sh. R.R. Dogra. All documents not proved legally and no author of documents appeared in the witness box.

62. There is no evidence brought on record that what happened to the initial allotted flat no. 7-C, Pocket JG-III, Vikas Puri, Delhi on record. DDA looses one flat or the original allottee Sh. Roshan Lal looses this flat and how and CS No. 13/17/97 (New No.8109/16) Bharat Bhushan Saraf &Anr. vs. DDA & Ors. 36/40 who allotted suit flat, because record is not available with DDA. It has been observed in the noting of the original file that file of suit flat no. 173 B, JG-III, Vikas Puri, Delhi was found dumped in the DDA office because the original allottee Sh. Subhash Chander after fulfilling the initial requirement of the allotment died. It cannot be ruled out that officials at the relevant time posted dealing with these files taking the advantage of the peculiar circumstances along with all alleged authors of documents discussed herein above succeeded in selling illegally the suit flat. It is pertinent to mention that the record further shows that neither Sh. Roshan Lal nor any subsequent alleged purchaser paid any installment to the DDA throughout. None of the above said persons at any point of time taken permission or informed the DDA with regard to the alleged transactions.