VINOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court was allotted a flat bearing number 4369, on third floor in Pocket ­ 5 & 6, Sector-B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi vide allotment letter number 125(15)/88/SFSVK-II/577. On payment of the price of the flat, the possession was given to him on 8.3.1994. Vide letter dated 22.8.2003, DDA called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.42,321/-, towards charge for conveyance deed, since the aforesaid flat had been allotted to him on freehold basis. However, despite deposit of the aforesaid amount, the conveyance deed was not executed by DDA. The petitioner being aggrieved from the failure of DDA to execute the conveyance deed, despite his having deposited the requisite charges, is before this Court by way of this writ petition.

(2.) IN its counter affidavit, DDA has admitted the allotment of the aforesaid flat to the petitioner as well as possession having been handed over to him on 8.3.1994. This is also an admitted position in the counter affidavit of DDA that the aforesaid flat was allotted to the petitioner on freehold basis and he deposited the amount of Rs.42,321/- required for execution of the conveyance deed in his favour and also submitted four sets of conveyance deed duly stamped from the Office of Collector of Stamps.

(3.) IT thus appears that a suspicion has been created in the mind of Delhi Police/DDA on account of the petitioner's surrendering firstly the flat allotted to him in Sarita Vihar and then the flat allotted to him in Paschim Puri. In the absence of any material indicating that the petitioner had committed some forgery or played a fraud upon DDA, there would be no reason for withholding execution of the conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner. This is not the case of DDA that surrender of allocation firstly at Sarita Vihar and then at Paschim Puri and the subsequent allocations made to him were contrary to the policy of DDA. On the other hand, the case of DDA appears to be that such surrender was permissible and requisite charges in this regard were duly deposited by the petitioner on both the occasions. If that is so, DDA has no legal right to withhold execution of the conveyance deed of the flat allocated to the petitioner in Vasant Kunj unless there is an order issued by Delhi Police or by the concerned Court restraining DDA from executing the conveyance deed of the said flat in favour of the petitioner. This is not the case of DDA in the counter affidavit that any order has been issued to it by Delhi Police or by the concerned criminal Court, restraining it from executing the conveyance deed of the said flat in favour of the petitioner.