( 1 ) ALL petitioners claim benefit all Section 41 of the Transfer of Property act and pray that DDA be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the flat, subject matter of each writ petition.

( 2 ) DEFENCE of DDA is that a fraud has been played upon it. Whether the original allottee or whether the petitioners are parties to the fraud is under investigation with CBI, It is urged by DDA that since issue of fraud arisen between the parties, on the pleadings as laid, without recording evidence, relief cannot be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, DDA prays that writ petitions be dismissed.

( 3 ) CASE pleaded by Rajesh Kumar Shankar, writ petitioner in WP (C) no. 529/98 is that being desirous of purchasing a flat, he approached one shri Ram Avtar Gupta who was rendering services as a property broker. Respondent No. 2, who was allotted flat No. 4-A, G. F. , Pocket-C, category-Ill, Kondli Gharoli, New Delhi was desirous of selling the flat which was allotted to him by DDA. The broker, Ram Avtar Gupta negotiated the deal on behalf of the petitioner with respondent No. 2. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 14. 10. 1997 by and under which agreement, respondent No. 2 agreed to sell the flat to the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs. 10,50,500/ -. It is stated in para 8 of the petition that the entire sale consideration was paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 1. Counsel for the petitioner states that this is a typing mistake. The sentence should read that the entire sale consideration was paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 executed an agreement to sell, general power of attorney, special power of attorney and a will in favour of the petitioner on 14. 10. 1997. It is further the case of the petitioner that DDA had handed over possession of the flat to respondent No. 2 on 10. 10. 1997 and that on 14. 10. 1997, respondent No. 2 handed over possession of the flat to the petitioner. Grievance in the petition is that on 29. 1. 1998, officers of dda came to seal the flat. lt is stated by the petitioner that he is a bonafide purchaser for value.

( 4 ) DEFENCE of DDA is that the flat in question was allotted to respondent no. 2 at a draw held on 31. 12. 1996. Demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to respondent No. 2 on 11/25-4-1997. Respondent No. 2 was to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,72,415/- within 60 days. With the connivance of officers of dda, respondent No. 2 managed to deposit with DDA fake challans evidencing deposit with DDA. There upon, possession of the flat was handed over to respondent No. 2, but when it was discovered that no deposit was made and the challan was a fabricated document, DBA proceeded to revoke the allotment and repossess the flat.

( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by him, respondent No. 2 states that when he received the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 11/25-4-1997, he did not have the requisite sum. He was contacted by one Raju Aggarwal who acts as a property broker. Raju Aggarwal agreed to purchase the allotment for a sale consideration of Rs. 90,000/ -. Raju Aggarwal agreed to deposit the amount demanded by DDA. He received Rs. 90,000/- from Raju Aggarwal and handed over to him all original documents issued to him by DDA. On 7. 10. 1997, he was asked by Raju Aggarwal to come to the flat in question and receive possession. He reached the flat on 10. 10. 1997. Raju Aggarwal took him to the office of DDA where he signed the possession slip. He did not take possession of the flat. Raju Aggarwal told him that he i. e. Raju aggarwal would collect the possession slip. Raju Aggarwal told him that he had arranged for sale of the flat to the petitioner and that he would be required to execute certain documents. He executed the documents as were furnished to him by Raju Aggarwal. These documents were in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 denies receipt of a