RUCHI SINGHAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Ruchi Singhal has filed the present intra-Court appeal assailing the decision dated 18 th February, 2011 dismissing her Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8485/2008. Mother of the appellant, late Arun Singhal, applied for an MIG flat and was registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. She deposited Rs.4,500/- vide receipt dated 17 th September, 1979. She expired on 31 st January, 1992. The appellant, who was the writ petitioner, is the daughter of late Arun Singhal.

(2.) In the draw of lots held on 15 th July, 1998, late Arun Singhal was allotted an MIG flat. The appellant came to know about the said allotment and vide letter dated 31 st October, 1998 informed the respondent-DDA about demise of Arun Singhal and requested the respondent to send the demand-cum-allotment letter in her name as she is one of the legal heirs. The appellant requested the respondent to inform her about the procedure and formalities for transfer of the registration. In spite of the said letter, the respondent issued demand-cum-allotment letter with block dates 15 th January, 1999-20 th January, 1999 in the name of late Arun Singhal. After a gap of about five months, on 12 th March, 1999, the respondent wrote to the appellant to furnish several documents like indemnity bond, affidavit, consent letters, death certificate in original etc. as per the prescribed proformas which could be taken from the office counter No. 4 in the DDA office. There is no explanation for this delay in responding to the letter dated 31 st October, 1998, vide letter dated 12 th March, 1999.

(3.) The appellant responded vide letter dated 25 th June, 1999 informing the respondent that she had repeatedly visited the counter No. 4 to obtain the proforma but was informed that the proforma was out of stock and the same had gone for printing and that due to non-availability of the proforma she cannot submit the documents like indemnity bond, consent letters etc. The respondent by letter dated 17 th August, 1999 again called upon the appellant to collect the booklet from the counter and apply for transfer of registration. The appellant protested vide letter dated 7 th October, 1999 that she had visited the counter but the proforma and booklet was not available and hence she was not in a position to furnish the documents as per the required proforma. The file notings in the DDA file show that in fact the proforma or the booklet was out of stock and was not available at counter No. 4. We are reproducing below the file notings dated 11 th August, 1999 and 29 th October, 1999: