SUSHILA PAREEK Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ, order or directions to quash the order of cancellation passed by the respondent/DDA by virtue of which allotment of plot No.87, Pocket 21, Sector 24, Rohini was cancelled.

(2.) A writ of mandamus has also been sought to direct the respondent/DDA to allot the aforesaid plot No. 87, Pocket 21, Sector 24, Rohini or a similarly situated plot in a developed sector to the appellant under the Rohini Scheme -MIG and deliver the possession thereof.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner, Pokhar Mal Pareek, got himself registered for allotment of a plot on 30.3.1981 under the Rohini Residential Scheme for MIG category. On 10.10.1988, the petitioner's husband passed away; however, no intimation about his death was given to the respondent/DDA till 1997. On 20.10.1993, the respondent/DDA allotted a plot No.87, Pocket 21, Sector 24, Rohini but the petitioner claimed that no letter or intimation regarding allotment had been received by her. In the month of July, 1997, the petitioner claims to have visited the office of the respondent/DDA where she learnt that an allotment was made against the registration number of her husband and she was asked to get her name mutated in place of the name of her husband. On 1.8.1997, the petitioner gave a letter at the counter of the respondent/DDA for mutation of her name and showed her willingness for making the payment of the plot but nothing was heard from the respondent/DDA. On 3.5.2001, the petitioner was asked to deposit certain papers so that the process of mutation could be completed. She claims that she again expressed her willingness to deposit the amount demanded by them. Thereafter, she approached the Urban Development Minister and on 27.3.2004 and a legal notice was issued to the respondent/DDA for restoration of the plot and since nothing was heard by her from the respondent/DDA, she kept on visiting the office of the respondent/DDA from 2008 to 2011 and finally in 2013, she filed the present petition. It has been stated that the respondent/DDA be directed to restore the flat allotted to her husband in the earlier draw held on 20.10.1993 or a flat in the similar category in lieu thereof.