RAJESH KUMAR SAXENA Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LATE Shri Anand Swarup Saxena, father of the petitioner, got himself registered for allotment of a residential flat from DDA under its New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS) 1979. Late Shri Anand Swarup Saxena expired on 15.1.1990. Since no information with respect to demise of late Shri Anand Swarup Saxena was given to DDA, a residential flat came to be allotted in his name and a Demand Letter dated 22.6.2006 was sent in his name at the address available in the record of DDA i.e. 151, Devi Nagar, Suraj Kund Road, Meerut. On coming to know of the aforesaid allotment, the petitioner being a legal heir of his father, applied for transfer of the mutation and registration in his name, on 15.12.2006. A perusal of the above-referred application, available in the file of DDA brought to the Court, would show that the petitioner specifically referred to the allotment of LIG flat bearing No.E-272, Pocket-3 in Sector 18, Rohini to his father and requested DDA to transfer the registration and allotment in his name. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, DDA sent a communication to the petitioner on 29.12.2006 requesting it to submit the mutation documents, as per Mutation Booklet available in DDA Office, so that his case could be processed accordingly. In response to the aforesaid communication from DDA, the petitioner submitted certain documents, vide its letter dated 16.4.2007 but did not submit the original FDR and the copy of the bank challan. This was conveyed to the petitioner, vide letter of DDA dated 11.5.2007. The petitioner, vide letter dated 16.10.2007, furnished the fourth copy of the challan but did not furnish the original FDR. The respondent sent another communication dated 29.10.2007 to the petitioner requiring him to submit the original FDR but, instead of submitting the original FDR , the petitioner submitted an Indemnity Bond which indicated that the original FDR had lost. The respondent thereupon asked the petitioner, vide letter dated 31.7.2008 to discharge the Indemnity Bond and submit the FIR regarding missing FDR. Vide another communication dated 27.1.2009, the respondent asked the petitioner to submit NCR regarding lost of the FDR. This requested was repeated, vide subsequent letter dated 30.7.2009. The NCR, as required by DDA, came to be submitted by the petitioner only on 10.12.2009. In reply thereto, respondent asked the petitioner to visit its office for clarification with reference to legal heirs, so that the case could be finalized. Thereafter, vide letter dated 3.2.2011, DDA mutated the registration in favour of the petitioner though for refund of registration money, not for the purpose of allotment of the flat.

(2.) THE petitioner, vide letter dated 6.6.2011 again requested the respondent for allotment of Flat No.E-272, Pocket-3, Sector-18, Rohini to him. The counter- affidavit filed by DDA shows that the request was rejected on the ground that complete mutation documents were furnished more than three years after the date of communication sent by DDA on 29.12.2006.

(3.) THE only reason given by DDA in its counter-affidavit for not acceding to the request of the petitioner for allotting the flat in question to him was that he did not submit all the documents within three years from the date of issue of communication dated 29.12.2006, meaning thereby that had the petitioner submitted all the requisite documents within three years from the issue of the aforesaid communication, his request for allotment of the aforesaid flat to him would have been acceded to. Since the only document, which according to the DDA, was not submitted by the petitioner within a period of three years from the date of issue of communication dated 29.12.2006 was the NCR in respect of the FDR and, in my opinion, the report lodged with police station on 13.4.2006 very much served the purpose which could be achieved by obtaining the NCR, DDA was not justified in not acceding the request of the petitioner.