Barkha Rani v. Delhi Development Authority and Others

ORDER %

24.07.2013 Present batch of writ petitions have been filed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to hand over possession of flats in Rohini and DwarkaundertheRehabilitationSchemeforPunjabmigrants. It is the case of the petitioners that though they had been allotted flats under the aforesaid Rehabilitation Scheme and have paid the entire amount asked for by Delhi Development Authority, yet they have not been allotted flats on the basis of letters dated 30*'^ March, 2009 and 03'"'^ October,2009 writtenby the SDM. The lettersof30'^March,2009 and 03'^'^ October,2009 are reproduced hereinbelow:- Letter dated 30^*^March. 2009 "OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONALMAGISTRATE (PUNJABI BAGH) MAINROHTAKROAD, NANGLOI, DELHI-110 041 1(1) SDM(PB)/2009/752-53 DATED 30/3/2009 The Commissioner (Housing) Delhi Development Authority INA, Delhi. Sub: Requestfor with holding the grant ofpossession of224flats. Madam, It has been brought to my notice that serious mal practices have been alleged in the above mentioned allotment dated

20.08.2008. It is informed that original allottees are not presently in possession of the NOCs issued from this office and the individuals applying for physical possessions are not original allottees but middle men and dealers. Thisdefeats the verypurpose ofthis scheme as the benefit does not reach the individualsfor which it is meant. In light of the above, it is suggested that before handing over the physical possession to all the abovementioned allottees, they should be directed to approach the office of the undersignedfor W.P.(C)4623, 4624, 4625,4626, 4627 cfe 4628 of20]3 Page 4 of8 proper verification of their documents/claims. Physical possession should not be given in any of the above cases without such verification. Further, it is requested that all the names and addresses of the successfulallotteesfor the above mentioneddraw may kindlybe sent to the undersignedfor proper re-verification. Sd/- (AASHISHMOHAN) SDM(PB) " Letter dated 03*"^ October. 2009 "OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE: PUNJABI BAGH MAINROHTAK ROAD, NANGLOI, DELHI-110 041 No. SDM(PB)/PGRC/2009-10/2259 DATED: 03/10/2009 To The Director (Housing)-II, DDA (Housing Department), Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. Sub: Regardingissue ofpossessionletter to the successfulallottee for the draw held on 20.09.2008under HSRPM. Sir, In pursuance of Deputy Commissioner(West), GNCT of Delhi letter No.PA/DCW/2009/2318 dated 25.09.2009 (copy enclosed), I am directed to inform you that pending enquiry the possession/allotmentof flats shall not be madetillfurther orders. This may be accorded Top Priority. Yoursfaithfully, Sd/- (AASHISHMOHAN) Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sub-Division, Punjabi Bagh " W.P.(C) 4623, 4624, 4625, 4626,4627&4628of20]3 Page5 of8 Learned counsel for petitioners states that in an identical petition being W.P.(C) 4567/2011 filed by another co-allottee Ms. Sunita, this Court directed respondent-DDA to hand over possession of the flat. The relevant portionofthe ordersdated 08"^ January,2013 and 01^^ March, 2013 passed in W.P.(C) 4567/2011 are reproduced hereinbelow:- Order dated 08^*^ January. 2013 "5. Affidavits have not beenfiled by the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 till date nor anyone appears on their behalf except a Superintendent from the SDM Office, Punjabi Bagh. In the circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the orders ofthis Court are not being heeded by the Respondents. A status report has, however, been filed by the Respondent No.3 instead ofan affidavit. Asper the said status report, the possession of flats to the successful allottees of allotmentdraw No.201 dated20^ August, 2008 held by the DDA was withheld by the DDA at the instance of the then SDM, Punjabi Bagh —Shri Ashish Mohan, who suggested to DDA vide his letter No.Fl.(l)/SDM, Punjabi Bagh/2009/752-53dated 3(f^ March, 2009 that before handing over physical possession to the allottees they should be directed to approach the SDM for proper verification of their documents/claims and physical possession should not be given in any ofthe cases without such verification in view of the fact that the Economic Offences WingofDelhi Police was investigating case FIR No.191 of 2006 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120BIPC, Police Station K.M. Pur, New Delhi on the issue of alleged irregularities in the allotment. It isfurther stated in the said status report that thereafter vide letter No.823/R-ACP/ALBR-I/EOW Crime Branch, Delhi dated 20.12.2011, it has been informed that the investigation in the aforesaid case does not cover draw No.201 of2008. W.P.(C)4623, 4624, 4625, 4626, 4627 & 4628 of2013 Page 6 of8

¶6In view of the aforesaid, it is more than apparent as even otherwise it ought to have been to the Respondent/DDA, that investigation of a case in 2006 could not have taken into account draw of lots held in the year 2008. The Economic Offences Wing could hardly be expected to investigate in 2006 a draw of lots which took place two years later in the year 2008. In the circumstances, DDA is directed to allot the flat to the Petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the Director [Mr. A.K. Vasisht, Director (Housing-II)] shall remain present in person on the next date. Verification shall be completed within ten daysfrom today. Order dated 01^^ March. 2013 "1. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/DDA states on instructions that Flat No. 5, Ground Floor, Pocket-15, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi has been allotted to the Petitioner pursuant to the order dated January 08, 20IS and the possession of the said plot has been handed over to the Petitioner. It is also stated that the Conveyance Deed will be executed within 15 days. Nothing further survives to be considered in the present petition.

¶2W.P.(C) No. 4567/2011 stands disposed ofaccordingly. " Keeping in view the aforesaid orders as well as the fact that the allotment of flats to petitioners and investigation has been pending for the U last nearly seven years, this Court is of the view that SDM should verify the documents filed by the petitioners within a period of twelve weeks and furnish his report to the DDA. The DDA in turn, is directed to process the papers within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It is made clear that in the event the SDM does not furnish his report within the aforesaid stipulated period, the DDA would independently process the documents and take a decision in accordance with law. W.P.(C)4623, 4624, 4625, 4626, 4627 & 4628 of2013 Page 7 of8 > Needless to say, petitioners would cooperate with the SDM as well as the DDA. With the aforesaid directions, present petitions stand disposed of. Order dasti. JULY 24,2013 js 11^ MANMOHAN, J fV.P.(C) 4623, 4624, 4625, 4626, 4627 & 4628 of2013 Page 8 of8

38 to 43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 38. + W.P.(C) 4623/2013 RAMESH KUMAR Petitioner Through: Mr. Sagar Dawar, Advocate. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA. Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. With 39. + W.P.(C) 4624/2013 SANJAY Petitioner Through: Mr. Sagar Dawar, Advocate. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. With W.P.(C) 4623, 4624, 4625, 4626, 4627 cfe 4628 of2013 Page 1 of8 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 'V' 40. + W.P.(C) 4625/2013 SURJEET KUMAR Petitioner Through: Mr. Sagar Dawar, Advocate. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYAND OTHERS Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. With 41. + W.P.(C) 4626/2013 SANTO Petitioner Through: Mr. Sagar Dawar, Advocate. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYAND OTHERS Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. With fV.P.(C) 4623, 4624, 4625,4626, 4627&4628of2013 Page2 of8 42. + W.P.(C) 4627/2013 BARKHA RANI Petitioner Through: Mr. Sagar Dawar, Advocate. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. And 43. + W.P.(C) 4628/2013 VIJAY KUMAR Petitioner Through: Mr. Sagar Dawar, Advocate. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA. Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN W.P.(C) 4623, 4624, 4625, 4626, 4627 & 4628 of2013 Page 3 of8