LAJWANTI BHATIA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. This is yet another case of double allotment wherein the flat allotted to the petitioner was allotted to some other person. The petitioner's representations for allotment of an alternative flat have been ignored by the respondents. The common man is again at the receiving end and has to run from pillar to post for the enforcement ot his legitimate rights.

(2.) It is a sad commentary on the functioning of our statutory bodies. After 52 years of independence we claim to be free citizens of this Court but we are slaves in the hands of the statutory authorities. Instead of realising their mistake and making the alternative allotment and issuing a demand-cum-allotment letter the petitioner has been compelled to approach the Court for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) A Schme was announced by the DDA for allotment of flats, namely New Pattern Registration Scheme - 1979 under the Delhi Development (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968. The petitioner applied for allotment of a MIG flat and was registered under the said Scheme in the year 1979. The petitioner was declared successful for allotment of a flat in 1991 and flat No. 50-C, Pocket-A, Nand Nagri, Delhi was allotted to the petitioner at the cost of Rs. 3,17,300.00 on cash down basis vide allotment letter dated 20th September, 1991. When the petitioner went to the site of the allotted flat she was shocked to find that the said flat had already been allotted to one Gian Chand on 26th May, 1988. This fact was certified by the Zonal Engineer. In the circumstances the petitioner represented to the Deputy Director, (Housing) and other officials of the DDA bringing to their notice that the flat allotted to her had already been in possession of some other person and requesting for an alternative flat on the terms and conditions on which the original flat was allotted to her. The petitioner was assured from time-to-time that the allotment would be made. The petitioner represented her case in the public hearing. A representation was also made to the Vice Chairman, DDA. The petitioner lost patience and moved this Court for relief.