Indu Sharma vs D.D.A.

V.K. Jain, J.—Late Shri Nityanand Sharma, father of the petitioner got registered under Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 of Delhi Development Authority for allotment of a residential plot. On the death of Shri Nityanand Sharma on 20th May, 2002, the petitioner, who is his divorced daughter, applied for mutation of the registration in her name and the same was allowed by DDA, vide her letter 3rd September, 2003. Subsequent to mutation of the registration in favour of the petitioner, a plot bearing No. 932, Pocket-C, Block-I, Sector-28, Rohini measuring 32 sq. mtrs. was allotted to the petitioner in the draw of lots held on 11th June, 2003. The Allotment Letter dated 6th October, 2003 was then issued to the petitioner asking her to deposit a sum of Rs. 38439/- by 5th December, 2003, Rs. 6244/- by 4th February, 2004 and Rs. 18667/- by 31st December, 2004. The amount demanded by DDA was duly deposited by the petitioner in time but instead of issuing Possession Letter to the petitioner, the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13th December, 2005 stating therein as under:-

Whereas the Registrant/Allottee had died and after his death the Registration/Allotment was transferred in the name of Miss Indu Sharma d/o late Sh. Nitya Nand Sharma vide this office letter dt. 3.9.03 and amended demand cum allotment letter was issued to Miss Indu Sharma on 6.10.2003. As per the terms and conditions of the demand cum allotment letter, the allottee was required to pay the Ist, IInd and IIIrd Instalments of premium of plot/land within the stipulated period, mentioned in the demand letter.

It has been noticed from the House Tax Receipt submitted that Smt. Kusum Sharma w/o late Sh. Nitya Nand Sharma is holding Property No. A-3/106/107 Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi-85 in her name whereas while applying for mutation she had furnished documents showing property No. 106 in the name of Alexander Wilson and 107 in the name of Meera Chopra and as per policy the Registrant or his wife including minor children is eligible for only one property from DDA.

The petitioner replied to the show cause notice received from DDA on 27th December, 2005. The following was the stand taken by the petitioner in her reply:-

... In view of the above this is quite clear that neither any property was in the name of my father at the time of registration nor there is any property in my name except the plot under reply transferred in my name. You will appreciate that both of us father & daughter were major and have not committed any breach. As such it is requested that the show cause notice may be withdrawn and the possession of the plot may be released so that I may also think of my establishment.

No decision has so far been taken by DDA on the aforesaid show cause notice though the petitioner was asked to submit an attested copy of the Office letter dated 3rd September, 2003 whereby the registration was transferred in her name. Being aggrieved by DDA not handing over possession of the aforesaid plot to her, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition.

In its counter-affidavit, the respondent DDA has alleged that on scrutiny of the papers submitted by the petitioner, it transpired that she was asked to submit proof of ownership of Pocket A-3/106/107, Sector-11, Rohini which had been referred in those documents. The petitioner submitted documents, such as, Demand Letter, Possession Letter, Allotment Letter etc. in respect of property 106, Pocket-3, Block-A, Sector-11, Rohini as well as photocopy of documents in respect of Flat No. 107, Pocket-3, Block-A, Sector-11, Rohini. Vide subsequent letters dated 7th September, 2005 and 28th October, 2005 DDA requested the petitioner to submit attested copy of the ownership roof/latest House Tax Receipts whereupon the petitioner produced a copy of House Tax Receipts in respect of Property No. A-3/106, and 107, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi which stands in the name of her mother Smt. Kusum Sharma w/o Late Shri Nityanand Sharma. It would be pertinent to note here that at the time of seeking mutation, the petitioner had furnished documents showing Property No. 106 in the name of Meera Chopra and the name of Smt. Kusum Sharma was not disclosed at that time, as the owner of the aforesaid two properties. Based upon the information gathered from the House Tax Receipts, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13th December, 2005 which was responded by the petitioner on 27th December, 2005. Thus, the case of the respondent is that the petitioner at the time of obtaining mutation of the registration in her name had concealed the fact that Property No. A-3/106, and 107, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi were owned by her mother. It is also stated in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner made a representation to Lt. Governor of Delhi which was examined and rejected vide letter dated 26th December, 2012. It would be seen from the counter-affidavit filed by DDA that no decision has so far been taken by it on the show cause noticed dated 13th December, 2005 which it had issued to the petitioner. Having issued the show-cause notice and received reply, DDA was required to take the matter to its original conclusion by passing an appropriate order in the matter after considering the reply and the documents, if any, submitted by the petitioner in support of her reply. That having not been done, the Court is not in a position to know what is the decision of DDA taken on the basis of the reply and documents furnished by the petitioner. It is only after the decision in the matter is taken by DDA, that the Court can go into the correctness or otherwise of such decision. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Director (RL), DDA to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in his office at 3.00 p.m. on 27th May, 2013 and thereafter take an appropriate decision pursuant to the show cause notice dated 13th December, 2005 issued by it to the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to file additional documents, if any, within a period of 10 days from today to Director (RL), DDA along with a supplementary reply, if any. The decision, so taken, shall be conveyed to the petitioner within one week thereafter. If the petitioner is aggrieved from the decision taken by DDA, it shall be open to her to avail such remedies as are available to her, in law.

A copy of this order be given Dasti.