Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. Ms. Ruchi Singhal has filed the present intra-Court appeal assailing the decision dated 18th February, 2011 dismissing her Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8485/2008. Mother of the Appellant, late Arun Singhal, applied for an MIG flat and was registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. She deposited Rs. 4,500/- vide receipt dated 17th September, 1979. She expired on 31st January, 1992. The Appellant, who was the writ Petitioner, is the daughter of late Arun Singhal.

2. In the draw of lots held on 15th July, 1998, late Arun Singhal was allotted an MIG flat. The Appellant came to know about the said allotment and vide letter dated 31st October, 1998 informed the Respondent-DDA about demise of Arun Singhal and requested the Respondent to send the demand-cum-allotment letter in her name as she is one of the legal heirs. The Appellant requested the Respondent to inform her about the procedure and formalities for transfer of the registration. In spite of the said letter, the Respondent issued demand-cum-allotment letter with block dates 15th January, 1999-20th January, 1999 in the name of late Arun Singhal. After a gap of about five months, on 12th March, 1999, the Respondent wrote to the Appellant to furnish several documents like indemnity bond, affidavit, consent letters, death certificate in original etc. as per the prescribed proformas which could be taken from the office counter No. 4 in the DDA office. There is No. explanation for this delay in responding to the letter dated 31st October, 1998, vide letter dated 12th March, 1999.

3. The Appellant responded vide letter dated 25th June, 1999 informing the Respondent that she had repeatedly visited the counter No. 4 to obtain the proforma but was informed that the proforma was out of stock and the same had gone for printing and that due to non-availability of the proforma she cannot submit the documents like indemnity bond, consent letters etc. The Respondent by letter dated 17th August, 1999 again called upon the Appellant to collect the booklet from the counter and apply for transfer of registration. The Appellant protested vide letter dated 7th October, 1999 that she had visited the counter but the proforma and booklet was not available and hence she was not in a position to furnish the documents as per the required proforma. The file notings in the DDA file show that in fact the proforma or the booklet was out of stock and was not available at counter No. 4. We are reproducing below the file notings dated 11th August, 1999 and 29th October, 1999:

In response to our letter dt. 12-3-99 (R a/c). The applicant has intimated that proformas are out of stock. She has therefore, requested to send the set of proformas.

In this connection it is submitted that these proformas are not available with us. If agreed, we may request the applicant to get the proforma from counter and apply for transfer of Regn. Accordingly fair letter is added for sign pl.

11/8/99

Supdt -13/8/99

AD

PUC No. 11267 dt. 20.11.99

In this case the allottee has requested for performas in r/o transfer of Regn/allotment. She has also intimated that the booklet is out of stock. (R 10/C).

Under the above circumstances, we may request Supdt. (Counter) to please intimate whether booklet is available on the counter for sale if not please intimate the date on which the booklet will be available.

Supdt.-31/11/99

AD

Supdt. (Counter)

4. As per the Respondent, vide letter dated 17th January, 2000 photocopy of the proforma was sent to the Appellant. The Appellant doubts the dispatchment of the said letter and has stated that she had not received the said letter. The Respondent has not placed on record any proof of dispatch for having sent the said letter to the Appellant. We are inclined to accept the plea of the Appellant that she did not receive the said letter for the reason that there was No. occasion or cause for her not to furnish the documents as per the prescribed proforma as can be seen and is ap