ANURADHA KALRA Vs. THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has sought the following three reliefs : -

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that one Dhanpati had registered under the 9th SFS category 2 flat. She was allocated a flat on the ground floor in Sector D, Pocket 6B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi vide demand -cum -allocation letter dated 20.02.1997. At the time of allocation, the specific flat number was not given in the allocation letter; however, the floor is given and the specific flat is allotted by a draw of lots after the allottee has made the entire payment in pursuance to the said allocation letter. On 15.7.1997, the allottee Dhanpati is purported to have sold the said allocation to the present petitioner Anuradha Kalra by executing an agreement to sell, will, power of attorney, etc. Anuradha Kalra, in pursuance to the allocation letter continued to deposit various amounts from time to time under the aforesaid scheme. It is further alleged in the petition that on 21.12.2001 a letter was addressed to Dhanpati allotting her the said specific flat bearing No. 6001/1, in the aforesaid Sector D, Pocket 6B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and she was further called upon to make payment of Rs.2,230/ - towards the various charges. The aforesaid payment was deposited by the present petitioner on 12.2.2002. On 10.12.2003, the petitioner intimated to the respondent/DDA for issuance of possession letter to her on the basis of general power of attorney, agreement to sell, receipt, etc. It is alleged that the possession of the said flat was not handed over to her; however, in a meeting held on 24.4.2008, the respondent/DDA had agreed to transfer the possession to the petitioner after charging a token penalty amount of Rs.5,000/ -. Further in terms of the letter No.J -20011/12/L dated 21.12.1989 issued by the Government of India, which laid down guidelines to confer the clear title of the flat to the allottee after realizing the conversion charges, surcharge and processing fee. It was alleged that the respondent was under an obligation to convey the freehold title in respect of the flat in question to the present petitioner. The petitioner had submitted all the requisite documents in this regard to the respondent; however, on 2.9.2009, the petitioner received an intimation that her request for handing over the possession of the flat in question was examined by the competent authority and she was required to deposit maintenance charges to the tune of Rs.27,080/ -. The aforesaid charges are purported to have been deposited by the petitioner on 27.10.2009. It is further alleged that after keeping the claim/request of the petitioner for issuance of possession letter pending for more than a decade, the respondent vide their letter bearing No. 125 (359) 97 SFS, VK 2 dated nil and in supersession of letter dated 31.12.2001 demanded an exorbitant amount of current cost from the petitioner. The current cost of the flat in question was stated to be approximately Rs.55 lacs and since the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.8 lacs or so, she was required to deposit the balance amount of Rs.42,66,157 with the respondent failing which on 14.7.2013, the flat was to be treated as automatically cancelled.

(3.) THE respondent filed its counter affidavit on 22.10.2013. It did not dispute the facts as alleged in the petition; however, it stated that although the original allottee is purported to have died on 1.5.1998 according to the petitioner but the intimation regarding her death was given for the first time vide letter dated 10.12.2003 at the time of seeking possession of the letter. It has also been stated that as Dhanpati had purportedly executed general power of attorney in favour of the present petitioner, Anuradha Kalra, on 15.7.1997 and she had died before taking the possession of the flat in question, therefore, the present sale was, as a matter of fact, a pre -possession transaction between the parties. It is also admitted by the respondent that the present petitioner had applied for conversion of the said flat from leasehold to freehold on 25.5.2009 and furnished requisite documents, namely, agreement to sell, power of attorney, etc. But it is contended that the question of handing over the possession to the petitioner was considered by the competent authority at the highest level and the question arose that there were only two ways of regularizing the request of the petitioner either by charging her unearned increase on the flat in question or alternatively to demand the current cost of the flat from the purchaser, namely, the petitioner. It is stated that the competent authority, namely, the Vice -Chairman, DDA vide its order dated 30.7.2012 decided to charge the current cost from the petitioner which was worked out to be in consultation with the finance wing of the respondent/DDA to be Rs.51,45,600/ - and after giving her an adjustment of an amount of Rs.8,79,443/ -, the present petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.42,66,157/ -. It is stated that as this was the last and final installment, it was to be deposited by 14.7.2013 failing which the flat was deemed to have been automatically cancelled. The aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit were refuted by the petitioner in rejoinder and its case in the petition was reaffirmed.