omitted to
disclose the aforesaid fact to the DDA and intentionally caused the
DDA to mutate the aforesaid property in his favour individually. Thus ... false representation of the accused made to DDA. In my
opinion, the DDA by mutating the said property in favour of the
accused had actually
connivance
of the officials of defendant/DDA made representation to the DDA for
mutation of the registration in his favour, however ... nivance of cert ain
officials of defendant/DDA made representation to the DDA for
mutation of the registration, however, h is requ
DDA and gave his statement on 09.01.1992 admitting therein the Will.
He has stated that the DDA issued a letter dated 17.02.1992 and a
mutation ... Criminal Appeal No. 792/2003 alongwith original DDA file, which
contained the proceedings before DDA for mutation.
14.5. Plaintiff's 5th witness
suit property.
That she has not submitted any affidavit to DDA
regarding mutation of the suit property in favour
of the defendant no.1.
That ... that the mutation was got
done.
That the mutation was got done after five years
because it was the requirement of the DDA
sister
Mrs. Rajendra Paul Kaur. He further states that his name stands mutated
in the relevant municipal records as the owner and landlord vide Order ... states that mutation of plaintiff's name in the municipal records and
execution of conveyance deed in his name by the DDA are outcomes
legal notice upon DDA
dated 07.11.2000, DDA did not pay any heed to the
Suit No.607460/2016 Indira Gupta Vs. DDA Page ... DDA Page-30/45
- 31 -
acted upon by DDA or other developmental
authorities or by the Municipal or revenue
authorities to effect mutation, they need
legal notice through his advocate to DDA requesting therein
not to mutate the property in the name of Smt. Raj Rani and
apart from that ... then
Ld. ADJ, Delhi vide his orders dated 13.12.2003, the mutation
effected by DDA does not hold good and the orders dated
19.02.1998 passed
legal notice through his advocate to DDA requesting therein
not to mutate the property in the name of Smt. Raj Rani and
apart from that ... then
Ld. ADJ, Delhi vide his orders dated 13.12.2003, the mutation
effected by DDA does not hold good and the orders dated
19.02.1998 passed
Delhi under section 73 of The
DDA Act and section 80 CPC calling upon the DDA to mutate the
CS-373/09/01 Page ... however the mutation does not confer any ownership
rights in the property. It was also stated that any mutation done
by DDA in favour
dated 13.08.2008 issued by DDA Ex. DW1/3(OSR), copy of
challan for deposit of money to DDA for mutation dated ... mutation to DDA since 2006. They have not filed on record any
reminder/request letter to DDA for expediting the mutation of
suit shop
