SULOCHANA DEVI THRU. LRS Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the order dated 29.1.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in appeal being R.C.A. No.125/2002 titled DDA vs. Sulochana Devi (dead) by LRs & Anr. by virtue of which the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge in Suit No.954/1988 was set aside.

(2.) MY learned predecessor has formulated the following substantial question of law vide order dated 6.4.2011 : -

(3.) IT was alleged in the suit that the grand -father of the plaintiff/appellant (Salochana Devi) was an allottee/tenant in respect of property No.B -56/173 -174, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). It was alleged that before the claim of the claimant in CAF No.D/2086/I (MA) could be adjusted towards public dues by way of rental and cost of the property, she expired and her compensation rights were inherited by her collaterals including the plaintiff/appellant. It was alleged that the suit property could not be transferred by the defendant No.1/Union of India as it was demolished in pursuance of the Kingsway Redevelopment Scheme and since then the allotment rights were heritable by the plaintiff/appellant. The collaterals, accordingly, had filed an application before the Settlement Authority for substitution of allotment rights of the deceased Ram Murti. The application for allotment rights was rejected by the Settlement Officer vide letter dated 29.4.1985 and on revision filed by the plaintiff, the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 7.11.1985 remanded the case back to the Managing Officer -cum -Settlement Officer. The plaintiff/appellant was appointed as a sole successor in interest of the allottee. She filed an application on 10.11.1986 for allotment of a plot of land in lieu of the tenement of the suit property. It was also alleged that the defendant No.2/DDA had earmarked the plot No.2645, Hudson Lines, as a suit property for the purpose of allotment; however, the said alternative allotment was not made to the plaintiff/appellant consequent to the demolition which resulted in filing of the suit for declaration and injunction. The said suit was assigned to the Court of Sh. K.C. Lohia, Sub -Judge, First Class, Delhi and it was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, she filed another suit (suit No.954/1988) seeking declaration and injunction as well as consequential relief for allotment which was decreed by the Civil Judge vide judgment dated 23.4.2002.