JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Late R.R. Bhatnagar registered himself with the Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA) under New Pattern Scheme in 1979 for allotment of a MIG flat. On 1st of December 1989 Shri Bhatnagar applied for transfer of his registration in favour of his daughter, the petitioner herein. On 14th of February, 1990 Shri Bhatnagar died. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26th of September, 1991 the petitioner sent a
reminder to the DDA for transfer of registration enclosing the death certificate of Shri Bhatnagar and requested for transfer of registration in her name. According to the petitioner another application was sent enclosing the affidavit, indemnity bond, consent letter and death certificate of Shri R.R. Bhatnagar. It seems that the draw of flats took place in February, 1994 where deceased R.R. Bhatnagar was found eligible for allotment of a MIG flat. The intimation of such allotment was sent at the address of R.R. Bhatnagar as given in the initial application by R.R. Bhatnagar. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that when late R.R. Bhatnagar has himself applied for transfer of registration in favour of petitioner along with the required documents after the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner had sent various letters, non-sending of allotment letter at the address of the petitioner was totally illegal, arbitrary and with ulterior motives. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the whole case of the petitioner is demolished by the letter written by the Assistant Director of the respondent which is at page 35 of the paper hook addressed to the petitioner al the address of the petitioner at the address of the petitioner The letter is as under:
Sub:-Transfer of Registration in death case.
“Madam,
with reference to your letter date 17.10.93 on the subject mentioned above, I am directed to request you to furnish the original death certificate, three specimen signature with photographs, photo copy of current Ration card duly attested and Affidavit as per specimen.
You are further requested to attend the office of the under sighed within 15 days from the issue of this letter so that action could be taken.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the receipt of this letter from the office of the Assistant Director of the respondent belies the story put forward by the respondent that no other address was available in the office of the respondent except the address as mentioned in the application of R.R. Bhatnagar. Therefore, it has been contended that the allotment of a flat in 1994 pursuant to which Bhatnagar was found eligible for allotment the letter of allotment could have been sent for intimation to the petitioner as it was only the petitioner who was corresponding with the respondent. In this connection it is contended that after the petitioner come to know about the draw of lots the petitioner approached the respondent for issuing the demand-cum allotment letter so that she could deposit the required amount with the DDA. In this connection letters were written to expedite the matter. In spite of giving any relief to the petitioner, the respondent vide its letter dated 3rd of April, 1997 cancelled the allotment of the flat due to non-submission of payment/document.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the transfer could not be effected on account of no objection and other legal formalities of Shri Bhatnagar. It is further contended that as per the Brochure only one address of Shri Bhatnagar was available and no other address was available with the respondent. It has also been contended that as transfer has not taken place in favour of the petitioner, therefore
petitioner could not have been intimated about the draw of lots. It is further con-tended that a demand-cum-allotment letter was sent at the last known address available in the record of the respondent in the name of the Shri Bhatnagar and that no new change of address was communicated by late R.R. Bhatnagar or the petitioner in time. As such the demand-cum-allotment letter was to be sent at the address of late Bhatnagar.
4. I have heard at length the learned counsel for both the parties, have perused the records produced by the respondent. The stand taken by the respondent that the only address on which the demand-cum-allotment letter could be issued pursuant to the draw of lots held in February, 1994 of late R.R. Bhatnagar in view of stipulation in the Brochure cannot stand scrutiny of law in view of the correspondence ensuing between R.R. Bhatnagar as well as the petitioner with the respondent.
5. A perusal of the record shows that on 25th of November, 1993 it has been mentioned that the applicant/petitioner has applied for transfer of registration as a death case. As a matter of fact, there is a note dated 22.11.1993 which is to the following effect:
“This is the case of transfer of registration in a death case. Shri R.R. Bhatnagar was registered to DDA for allotment of MIG flat against Registration No. 17592. One of the legal heirs Smt. Kumkum Singh, daughter of late Shri R.R. Bhatnagar has informed the office that the original registrant Shri R.R. Bhatnagar has since expired on 14.2.1990.
She has submitted the following documents for transfer of registration in her favour:
The details of documents given as under:
1. Death certificate – page 32.
2. Three specimen signatures with – photograph 33.
3. Affidavit regarding legal heirs – page 34. 4. Photo copy of Ration card – page 35.
5. Identity bond – page 26.
6. Consent letter – page 28.
7. Affidavit to the effect that the deceased is not alive.
8. Original Registration Certificate.
9. Original FDR.
10. School Leaving Certificate.”
6. Then the file was sent to the legal office of the respondent. Shri R.R. Bhatnagar during his life time had applied for transfer of registration in the name of her daughter the factum of death of Shri Bhatnagar was brought to the notice of the respondent by the petitioner. The respondent was considering the case of transfer in relation to the flat allotted to Shri Bhatnagar to the petitioner; the respondent was corresponding at the address of the petitioner at Tarun Vihar, Rohini, to say that no other address was available in the file of respondent is patently incorrect and false. The respondent
authority was informed that Shri R.R. Bhatnagar was not alive. Therefore, sending of any letter at the address of Shri Bhatnagar raises question mark about the bona fide of the respondent. Court could have appreciated if pursuant to the draw held in February, 1994, the respondent could send a copy to the petitioner who was claiming to be the sole beneficiary for the allotment for which an application of petitioner, was pending consideration before the respondent. Therefore, I do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that no other address was available with the respondent and therefore the same was only sent at the address of R.R. Bhatnagar.
There are two aspects of the whole controversy:
7. Firstly in a case where the registrant is alive and not seeking any transfer the only course open to the respondent is to intimate at the address as supplied by the applicant registrant. But in a case of death when the original registrant has expired and no other person has come forward, the respondent authority can take protection of clause in the Brochure to the effect that that was the only address available with the respondent, therefore intimation could be sent on that address only. But here is a case where original registrant in the year 1989 has communicated to the respondent his desire to transfer the allotment in favour of the petitioner and petitioner herself has approached the respondent notifying her address submitting all the relevant documents as per the notings of the respondent. 1 was incumbent upon respondent to have sent the allotment letter at the address of the petitioner. Non sending of the same gives an impression that the respondent never wanted to inform the actual beneficiary. As I have observed in the preceding paragraphs respondent themselves have been communicating with the petitioner at the address of the petitioner and as such the stand taken by the respondent is not bona fide.
8. Secondly, according to the stand of the respondent, as per the counter affidavit filed, the respondent had allowed the transfer in: the name of the petitioner on 15.2.1995. The same has been admitted in para 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. When the respondent themselves have transferred the registration in the name of the petitioner on 15.2.1995 how that flat which was allotted to R.R. Bhatnagar was allotted to someone else on 7th of August, 1996 by the respondent. After perusal of the record there is nothing in the counter affidavit that after 15.2.1995 any notice of allotment in favour of the petitioner was sent and petitioner failed to deposit the amount of money demanded which could have been the premises for justification for cancellation of allotment and subsequent allotment of the flat in question on 7th August, 1996. As a matter of fact, from the notings dated 6th October, 1994 the Assistant Director had recommended the case of the petitioner for transfer of registration. On 25th of January, 1995 a note was recorded that registration transferred in favour of Smt. Kumkum Singh vide Deputy Director’s order dated 19.12.1994. It was further recorded that necessary entries have to be made in registrant’s register which may be attested. Having made the requisite entry in the registrant’s register incorporating the transfer of the petitioner in place of R.R. Bhalnagar on 25th of January, 1995 how possession could be given to anybody else except the petitioner on 7th of August, 1996.
From the noting on the file it is clear that all the documents, specimen signatures, affidavit etc. have been submitted by the petitioner on 22.11.93.
9. A careful scrutiny of the file reveals very interesting reading. On 7th June, 1995 a note is put up that if agreed allotment may be cancelled. File goes upto the Deputy Director (MIG) who simply endorsed the note of 25th June, 1996. On 18th December, 1996 a note is prepared to the following effect:
“DEFRAY may be requested to attach file No. 17592/78/MIG/NP. From the record above, the file containing the transfer of registration is also placed along with the file of allotment of Shri R.R. Bhatnagar. There is no discussion on the file as to what action has been taken from 26th June, 1996 till 18th of December, 1996. No information regarding sending any communication to the petitioner even after 18th of December, 1996 when authorities came to know that the registration in question has been transferred in favour of the petitioner.”
10. Then comes the note of 6th March, 1997 saying that the flat in question has been allotted to another registrant who was successful in the draw of lot held on 7th August, 1996. It does not seem so simple. How this gentleman Ram Gopal came in and was allotted the flat and who ordered for substitution of his name to a flat for which he was not entitled as he was successful allottee in the year 1996. How he got a priority to the allotment of 1994. The flat in question was on ground floor. The respondent owes an explanation in this regard. It is very easy for the Court also in view of the stand taken by the respondent that a particular flat has been allotted to someone else to pass appropriate orders for allotment of a similar nature of flat. But in a case like the one hand I would like the matter to be probed by the CBI as to why and under what circumstances in the absence of any order on the file of R.R. Bhatnagar by competent authority to allot the said flat in favour of Ram Gopal why the said flat was allotted to Ram Gopal more so in view of the representation of the petitioner pending consideration with the respondent to which the respondent themselves has recorded the transfer in favour of the petitioner way back in February, 1995. I further hold that non-communication of incorporating the change of registration in the name of the petitioner when respondent has changed the name in February, 1995 although the formalities of filing required documents were over from the side of petitioner on 22.11.93 and thereby not communicating the demand to the petitioner was totally arbitrary and illegal. As the flat has already been allotted to some third party and third party is not before me as a party to the present writ petition, I direct the respondent to allot a similar size of the flat at similar locality which was allotted initially to R.R. Bhatnagar to the petitioner. I also direct the Vice-Chairman of the DDA to conduct inquiry as to how the allotment of the flat was made in favour of Ram Gopal.
11. The Vice Chairman, DDA will submit a report within eight weeks to this Court. The flat, as observed above, be allotted to the petitioner within a period of four weeks at the rate of 1994. The demand cum allotment letter be issued within two weeks. The impugned order is quashed. Petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/ =. Cost be recovered from the officers concerned who were responsible for not intimating the
petitioner after recording of note of 22.11.93 about successful allotment in favour of R.R. Bhatnagar in 1994 and 1995 after fixing responsibility.
Copy of this order be given DASTI to the parties.