*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 27th September, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 6044/2010
HAMDARD LABORATORIES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma & Mr.
Sitesh, Adv.
Versus
DDA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the communication dated 10 th March, 2010 of
the respondent DDA intimating to the petitioner the rejection of the
application dated 27th December, 2000 for conversion of flat No.J-202 in
Taj Sartaj Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. at Link Road, Geeta
Colony, New Delhi into freehold, for the reason of non-submission of the
W.P.(C)No.6044/2010 Page 1 of 5
required documents/information. The petition also seeks mandamus to the
respondent DDA to convert the said flat into freehold.
2. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed by
the respondent DDA to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.
The counsels have been heard.
3. The counsel for the respondent DDA has invited attention to para
2.12 of the counter affidavit listing out the deficiencies in the application
of the petitioner and owing whereto the application for freehold conversion
is stated to have been rejected after keeping the same pending for nearly
nine years.
4. It has been enquired from the counsel for the respondent DDA as to
whether the petitioner had been called upon to complete the said
deficiencies. The last communication from the respondent DDA to the
petitioner, annexed to the counter affidavit is dated 8 th September, 2008 in
which the petitioner has been called upon to produce the following three
documents only:-
a. Proof of physical possession of flat like Voters I.
Card, Electricity Bill, telephone Bill etc.W.P.(C)No.6044/2010 Page 2 of 5
b. Undertaking regarding flat is being used only for
residential purpose.
c. Resolution of competent authority may be
provided vide which a person is nominated in
place of Shri S.R. Siddiqui for execution of
Conveyance Deed.”
5. The counsel for the petitioner has from the documents annexed to
the petition demonstrated that the aforesaid three documents already stood
supplied to the respondent DDA. The proof of physical possession was
supplied, in the form of a Ration Card of the officer/employee of the
petitioner who had been allowed to reside in the said flat, undercover of
letter dated 29th September, 2003 bearing acknowledgment of the same
date of the R&D Cell of Vikas Sadan, at page 105A of the paper book.
Similarly the undertaking sought is shown to have been furnished against
receipt dated 19th September, 2008 issued by the respondent DDA at page
111 of the paper book. The Resolution in favour of the officer of the
petitioner who was to execute the Conveyance Deed is shown to have been
submitted undercover of letter dated 16 th September, 2008 in the form of a
Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Javed Akhtar, Law Officer of the
petitioner. The counsel for the respondent DDA is not able to controvert
W.P.(C)No.6044/2010 Page 3 of 5
the aforesaid documents. No contravention thereof is also found in the
counter affidavit of the respondent DDA.
6. The respondent DDA having not shown that the documents, owing
to deficiency whereof the application for freehold was rejected, were
demanded and the last communication of the respondent DDA to the
petitioner, confining the deficiencies to three documents only, the rejection
of the application for the reasons of non-supply by the petitioner of the
documents/information allegedly sought, cannot be sustained.
7. The petition therefore succeeds. The letter dated 10 th March, 2010 of
the respondent DDA is set aside/quashed.
8. The petitioner to appear before the Dy. Director (Housing), DDA on
13th October, 2011 at 1500 hours along with all documents as have been
mentioned in the counter affidavit, even if the same are claimed to have
been supplied earlier, and the Dy. Director (Housing), DDA is directed to,
after examining the said documents if still finds any deficiency therein, to
communicate the same in writing to the petitioner against acknowledgment
from the petitioner on the same day and the petitioner to complete the said
formalities on or before 30th November, 2011. Subject to the petitioner
W.P.(C)No.6044/2010 Page 4 of 5
completing the said formalities, the application of the petitioner for
freehold conversion be processed further.
9. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 27, 2011
pp
W.P.(C)No.6044/2010 Page 5 of 5