Rajneesh Bhola vs D.D.A.

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—Petitioner, Mr. Rajneesh Bhola was registered under the NPR Scheme, 1979 for allotment of an LIG flat. He had deposited Rs. 1500/- towards registration fee in 1979.

After waiting for more than 25 years, the petitioner was allotted a LIG flat at Dwarka in the draw of lots held in 2006. The petitioner claims that he did not receive demand cum allotment letter but came to know about the said allotment from a property dealer in Nasirpur, Dwarka and thereupon he visited the office of DDA. He informed DDA vide his letter dated 24th November, 2006 that he had changed his residence from Bara Hindu Rao to Rohini and future correspondence and demand-cum-allotment letter should be issued to him at his new address.

DDA in their counter affidavit has stated that they had issued demand cum allotment letter in the name of the petitioner on 25th August, 2006 at Bara Hindu Rao address and the last date for making payment of initial deposit with interest was 21st February, 2007. As the flat had been allotted on hire purchase, the petitioner was required to make payment of the balance amount in 144 monthly installments @ Rs. 6730/- p.m. starting from 10th November, 2006. The stand taken by the DDA is that on 17th October, 2006 they had received a request letter from the petitioner for refund of the registration money along with the original demand cum allotment letter, three specimen signatures with one photo attested by notary public, fourth copy of bank challan form of Rs. 1,500/- and original FDR of 1979, copy of bank passbook, etc. Accordingly, DDA cancelled the registration of the petitioner, instead of allotting the flat. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to allotment of the said flat as his registration under NPR Scheme, 1979 was cancelled at his behest.

The petitioner, on the other hand, has pointed out that he was earlier residing in the joint family along with his brother at Bara Hindu Rao. He has stated that the demand cum allotment letter which was sent at the earlier address at Bara Hindu Rao, was received by his brother, Mr. Subhash Chander Bhola who is running a shop adjacent to the old residence of the petitioner. After the petitioner came to know about the allotment, the petitioner searched for the original papers and noticed that they were missing. Accordingly, on 6th December, 2006 he had made a written complaint to the SHO, P.S. Rohini, Sector-3, New Delhi about the loss of original registration documents. The petitioner repeatedly met the officers of DDA and made representations that someone had illegally and fraudulently applied for refund of the registration amount and there was no question of his asking for refund of the registration amount after waiting for more than 25 years. The petitioner submitted an affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper affirming his statements on oath. Apart from visiting the Office of DDA, he also attended the various public hearings representing and reiterating his case but without success.

The petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit and additional affidavit has made allegations against his brother and has stated that his brother may have written letter dated 17.10.2006 to the DDA by impersonating and forging the signatures of the petitioner. It is further alleged that his brother may have come across the original registration documents and taken them away when they were staying together in the joint family.

Normally when disputed questions of facts are raised, it is difficult for the writ Court to adjudicate on the basis of affidavits. However, the facts of the present case entirely support the facts pleaded by the petitioner. The petitioner had got himself registered for allotment of a LIG flat under NPR Scheme, 1979 by depositing Rs. 1500/-. The allotment of the LIG flat was made to the petitioner after a gap of more than 25 years in the draw of lots held on 23rd March, 2006. The allotment was on hire purchase basis and not on cash down basis. Allotment of flat after waiting for more than quarter of a century is nothing less than a dream come true and a lottery. It is difficult to perceive and accept that the petitioner would have applied for cancellation of the said allotment and asked for refund of the registration amount of Rs. 1,500/-, instead of accepting the allotment. This will be contrary to normal and acceptable human conduct unless a person is mindless or besotted. The difference between market price and allotment price is substantial and well known. Allotment of an LIG flat is a windfall as the flats command a substantial premium, which can be encashed.

In these circumstances, I believe and accept the statement of the petitioner that he did not write the letter dated 17th October, 2006 asking for cancellation of registration. The registration amount has not been refunded by DDA and remains with them. No cheque for the refund amount has been issued to the petitioner. 8. The file notings reveal that after letter dated 17th October, 2006 was received, the matter was processed and the order of cancellation was approved by Commissioner (Housing) only on 8th December, 2006. Before the said date, the petitioner had already written the letter dated 24th November, 2006 which reads as under:

Sir, Initially I was residing at 4882 Bara Hindu Rao Delhi-6. While I registered a flat from dDA during 1979. But I have shifted my residence at 304/D6/Sector-6 Rohini, Delhi. Due to some domestic problem i.e. eye site/heart. I could not intimate to you in time regarding my change of address.

Now I came to know that I have been allotted a Flat L.I.G. No. 228/Pkt/18B/Dwaraka, but upto date till I could not get my demand letter in r/o that flat. It may happened due to change of my address residence intimation.

Now you are requested to please either hand over the Demand letter to me by hand or post the same at my presence address as detailed below:

Rajneesh Bhola

304/Pkt D-6/Sector-6, Rohini Delhi-85

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

(Rajesh Bhola)

S/O Late Sh. Ram Lal Bhola

R/o 304, Pocket: D-6,

Sec-6, Rohini, Delhi-85.

(R) 27042567 98114554935

A bare perusal of the said letter shows that the petitioner had informed DDA that he was interested and wanted allotment and was waiting for the demand cum allotment letter. DDA should have immediately got cautious and suspicious about the letter dated 17th October, 2006 after receiving the communication dated 24th November, 2006. DDA should not have processed the case for cancellation and passed cancellation order on 8th December, 2006. It is also stated in the Petition that the petitioner on 7th December, 2006 had met Mr. J.P. Aggarwal, Director (Housing) in a public hearing and had pointed out his case including the fact that he had made a police complaint about loss of original registration papers. It is not understandable why DDA proceeded to cancel the registration on 8th December, 2006 after the petitioner had already appeared in the public hearing and had pointed out to Mr. J.P.Aggarwal, Director (Housing) the fact that he had never requested DDA to cancel his registration.

In these circumstances, I allow the Writ Petition and direct DDA to allot the said flat to the petitioner on the terms and conditions mentioned in the demand cum allotment letter. The petitioner has already deposited Rs. 11,92,283/- in terms of letter dated 21st November, 2008 written by DDA. DDA will accordingly verify the said deposit, process the case for handing over possession and execute necessary documents of ownership. If the petitioner is required to complete any formalities, he will be informed accordingly. For this purpose, the petitioner will visit the Office of Commissioner (Housing), DDA on 15th May, 2009 at 3.00 p.m.

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.