RAJESH SHANKAR MATHUR Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All petitioners claim benefit all Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and pray that DDA be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the flat, subject matter of each writ petition.

(2.) Defence of DDA is that a fraud has been played upon it. Whether the original allottee or whether the petitioners are parties to the fraud is under investigation with CBI, It is urged by DDA that since issue of fraud arisen between the parties, on the pleadings as laid, without recording evidence, relief cannot be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, DDA prays that writ petitions be dismissed.

(3.) Case pleaded by Rajesh Kumar Shankar, writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 529/98 is that being desirous of purchasing a flat, he approached one Shri Ram Avtar Gupta who was rendering services as a property broker. Respondent No. 2, who was allotted flat No. 4-A, G.F., Pocket-C, Category-Ill, Kondli Gharoli, New Delhi was desirous of selling the flat which was allotted to him by DDA. The broker, Ram Avtar Gupta negotiated the deal on behalf of the petitioner with respondent No. 2. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 14.10.1997 by and under which agreement, respondent No. 2 agreed to sell the flat to the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs. 10,50,500/-. It is stated in para 8 of the petition that the entire sale consideration was paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 1. Counsel for the petitioner states that this is a typing mistake. The sentence should read that the entire sale consideration was paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 executed an agreement to sell, general power of attorney, special power of attorney and a will in favour of the petitioner on 14.10.1997. It is further the case of the petitioner that DDA had handed over possession of the flat to respondent No. 2 on 10.10.1997 and that on 14.10.1997, respondent No. 2 handed over possession of the flat to the petitioner. Grievance in the petition is that on 29.1.1998, officers of DDA came to seal the flat.lt is stated by the petitioner that he is a bonafide purchaser for value.