SUDERSHAN SINGH Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed by the appellant, against order of District Forum-II dated the 20th February, 1996 in Complaint Case No.3148/94, entitled Sh. Sudershan Singh V/s. The Vice Chairman, DDA.

(2.) The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant applied for allotment of a Low Income Group Flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme of 1979 with the respondent, vide registration No.52875 dated the 23rd June, 1980. Thereafter the appellant was allotted a flat bearing No.122-F, Type II, Pocket A-2, GRP-II, Koundli Gharoli, vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 9/13th January, 1991 at a total cost of Rs.1,84,300/-. The appellant as required, deposited Rs.74,485/- as initial amount on 14.3.1991. It is the case of the appellant that after the initial payment he also submitted the relevant documents and completed all the other formalities/requirements and received a possession letter and permission to get electricity connection in the allotted flat. It is further stated by the appellant that on visiting the site, he found that the flat allotted to him was occupied by and allotted to one Sh. Balbir Singh. Since, the possession of the flat in question could not be handed over to the appellant, he was advised to deposit a sum of Rs.4,830/- as restoration charges for fresh allotment, which he paid vide challan No.26573 dated 30.6.1992. But as no flat was allotted to the complainant even after the deposit of the restoration charges, he filed a complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) The respondent controverted all the other allegations of the appellant in its written version/reply. It was stated by the respondent that though the appellant had made the initial payment as mentioned above yet the fact remains that he did not submit the relevant documents in time and, therefore, his allotment automatically stood cancelled and the alleged flat was re-allocated to someone else. It was also stated by the respondent that on the payment of restoration charges by the appellant, his registration for allotment of flat was restored but the name of the appellant would be included at the tail end of the list for re-allotment.