Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Kaushlya Madan & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
RFA 535 of 2011 & CM NO. 7422 of 2012
Decided On : 23-05-2018
For the Appellant : Ms. Manjula Gandhi, Ms. Medha Tandon and Mr. Aditya Kapoor
For the Respondents: Mr. Nikhil Goel, Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh & Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, Mr. D.K. Singh, Mr. Sunil Kumar Murjani
Proper communication and maintenance of records by the DDA are crucial in determining the legality of allotment cancellation and granting specific performance.
Headnote:
DDA Scheme - Allotment of Residential Flats - Registration Scheme for New Pattern, 1979 - [CPC, Sec. 53(B)] - [General Clauses Act, 1897] - The court analyzed the DDA Scheme and the legal provisions under the CPC and the General Clauses Act. It highlighted the importance of proper communication and maintenance of records by the DDA in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought declaratory relief and specific performance of a flat allotment under the DDA Scheme. The DDA admitted the application but claimed cancellation of allotment due to non-payment. The Plaintiff's evidence showed diligent follow-up, while the DDA's records revealed discrepancies and lack of proper communication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the DDA failed to communicate the demand cum allotment letter and cancellation to the Plaintiffs. It noted the Plaintiff's diligent efforts and the DDA's repulsive attitude. The court held the cancellation illegal and granted specific performance in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Issues: Verification of written statement, authority of the officer filing the statement, maintainability of the suit, legality of allotment cancellation, entitlement to declaratory relief, entitlement to specific performance, entitlement to mandatory injunction, relief, and notice under Sec. 53(B) of the DD Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proper communication and maintenance of records by the DDA. It relied on the General Clauses Act to establish the deemed delivery of registered post. It found the DDA's cancellation of allotment illegal due to lack of proper communication and granted specific performance in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, granted specific performance in favor of the Plaintiffs, and directed the DDA to hand over possession and execute necessary deeds. It also urged the Lieutenant Governor and Vice Chairman of DDA to issue appropriate orders for record maintenance and online tracking feature.
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. The DDA issued a scheme known as Registration Scheme for New Pattern, 1979, for allotment of residential flats (hereinafter ‘DDA Scheme’) in Dwarka.
2. Sh. J.C. Madan applied for a flat and deposited a sum of Rs. 4,500/- vide Challan No. A-05001 dated 25th September, 1979. The said deposit was to carry an interest of 7% per annum which was to be adjusted towards payment of cost of the flat or to be repaid. A certificate of Registration was also issued to Sh. J.C. Madan dated 17th May, 1980 by the DDA in which his address is recorded as D-II/76, Janak Puri, New Delhi. The Registration number was changed from 18604 to priority number 32941.
3. Sh. J.C. Madan, however, passed away on 13th June, 1984 but on the said date, the flat was not allotted to him but his registration number was valid. He left behind two legal heirs Smt. Kaushlya Madan (wife) and Sh. S.K. Madan (son). On 13th September, 2002, the son of Sh. J.C. Madan informed the DDA of his new address as DG-II/32-A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. In January, 2004 on seeing a press clipping of Times of India that all the registrants under HUDCO Scheme had been allotted the flats his son made enquiries. It was then revealed that the DDA had not effected the change of address in its records. At that stage, the Plaintiffs again submitted all the documents with the DDA and also prayed for change of name of allottee. Again the Plaintiffs sent a reminder on 18th September, 2006. However, none of the letters were replied by the DDA which led to issuance of a legal notice dated 7th December, 2006 and thereafter the filing of the suit by the wife and the son of Sh. J.C. Madan (hereinafter ‘Plaintiff’). In the plaint, they prayed for the followings relief’s against the DDA.
“19. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a-
(A): A Decree for Declaratory Relief, declaring the Plaintiffs to the allotment & entitlement/of Flat No. 445, Phase-2, Pocket B, Sector 13, Dwarka, MIG., Second-Floor, Delhi-110075 in favour of the Plaintiffs against the defendant at the original cost of the Flat fixed by the defendant at Rs. 1,01,6400/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs/Sixteen/Thousands Four Hundreds) may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs against the defendant, as Legal heirs of Late Mr. J.C. Madan.
(B): A Decree for the Specific Performance of the Contract by means of delivery of physical possession of the Flat No. 445, Pocket ‘B’, Phase-2, Sector 13, MIG., Second-Floor on payment/deposit of original cost of RS. 1,01,6400/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs Sixteen Thousands/Four Hundreds) or the amount so demanded in the alleged + Allotment Letter and execution of the conveyance-cum-Lease-Deeds in favour of the Plaintiffs may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs, against the defendant.
In case, the captioned Flats Specific Performance can not be done by the defendant, then in that event, the Plaintiffs be allotted the possession delivered thereof with execution of the Perpetual Lease Deed, Conveyance Deed in favour of the Plaintiffs by the defendant of any other flat of the similar size, quality, construction, Get-Up, Area, Locality and preferably the Flat be Ground-Floor because of the Plaintiffs being quite aged person cannot climb the stairs (they being respectively of 75, 58 years of ages respectively) at this time in the Locality known as Dwarka, Pappan Kalan, Delhi-110075.
(C): A Decree of Mandatory Injunction, thereby directing the defendant to maintain, preserve the allotment of Flat and transfer the Allotment rights in favour of the Plaintiffs, after disclosure of the formalities to be undergone by the Plaintiffs on receipt of communication by the Plaintiffs from the defendant be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs against the defendant.
(D): Costs of the suit, alongwith any other appropriate relief, Order or Direction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant.
In the alternative, the plaintiffs, pray that in case the above-stated relief’s can not be granted in
