JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      Learned counsel for the petitioner present.

2.      Smt. Kailashwati Dhall came to India from Pakistan at the time of the partition of the country in the year 1947.  She was allotted ARP quarter at Motia Khan, Delhi.  Delhi Development Authority wanted to reconstruct the said area.  Therefore, it allotted alternative flats to those occupants, who were occupying the flats in Motia Khan.  Delhi Development Authority issued a letter on 11.3.1986 and allotted flat No. B-2/72-C at Lawrence Road, New Delhi in her favour.  At that time, she was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.12,000/-.  The said amount was deposited in two installments.  She was handed over the physical possession of the flat on 25.03.1986.

3.      Unfortunately, Smt. Kailashwati Dhall expired on 11.3.2006.  The present petitioners, Shri V. P. Dhall and Mrs. Kamlesh Ghai, legal representatives, represented her.

4.      Some such allottees had filed a writ petition bearing No. CWP 3473 of 1987 before the Hon’ble High court under the title “Shri Bhanu Ran and Ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.”  Hon’ble High Court directed that Delhi Development Authority would issue appropriate letters to those allottees and the remaining allottees can also be issued appropriate letters if they accept the offer made by the Delhi Development Authority on the principles laid down in the above said judgment.

5.      This is an indisputable fact that Smt. Kailashwati Dhall was not a party in those proceedings.  The petitioners in the above said writ petition were directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per month each to be adjusted against the hire-purchase charges.   The Delhi Development Authority sent a letter to Smt. Kailwashwati Dhall to deposit Rs.1,05,916/-.  There is another undated letter showing the value of the flat as Rs.1,05,916/- sent to Smt. Kailashwati Dhall.  It is not clear when this letter was sent.  There is no date in the letter.  It mentions:

                   “From Deputy Director (Valuation)              New Delhi-110023

                   To

                             Smt. Kailashwati Dhall,               

                             B 2/72-C, Lawrence Road,

                             New Delhi

                             Sub. Valuation of Property at B-2/72-C,

                                      Lawrence Road, N.D.

                   Madam,

With reference to your request for valuation of above cited property, I am directed to inform you that the value assessed by this department as of 30.05.1992 is Rs.1,05,916/- (Rupees one lac five thousand nine hundred sixteen only)”

6.      It is notable that it was mentioned that this amount is to be paid. The letter does not mention ‘what was the schedule of payment of that amount’.  There is no warning that if that amount was not paid in time, what action could be taken by the Delhi Development Authority.

7.      Thereafter, Smt. Kailashwati Dhall died and his legal representatives applied for mutation of the flat.  It is surprising to note that the Delhi Development Authority did not take trouble to reply the said letter.  It is apparent that the Delhi Development Authority did nothing and slept over the matter.  It is well settled that you cannot make an Omlette without breaking eggs.  However, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards letter dated 30.1.2006 written by Smt. Kailashwati Dhall.  Its relevant parts run as under:

“4. The above flat was valued at Rs.1,05,916/- as of 10.05.1992 vide your letter F960(4C)91-VAL/92, copy enclosed

It would be worthwhile submitting that at the time residents of ARP Quarters, Motia Khan were evacuated in 1986, they filed petition in the court challenging the DDA’s demand for payment of the allotted flats on the ground that the flats allotted were in lieu of the accommodation vacated by the residents and as such no payment be charged.  However, I was not a party to that court case.  When I contacted the DDA office, I was informed that irrespective of whether I was a party of court case I would be treated as par with the other evacuees.”

It is also surprising to note that the Delhi Development Authority did not respond.  Ultimately, after tolerating such harassment and mental agony, the legal representatives of Smt. Kailashwati filed a complaint before the District Forum.  During the pendency of this case, Delhi Development Authority woke up and sent a letter to Mr. V. P. Dhall mentioning that he was to deposit Rs.32,28,572/- for getting the mutation entered in his name.

8.      The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission.  The State Commission disposed of the appeal and passed the well-reasoned order, which is as under:

“10.  In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that the DDA was entitled to the value of the flat of Rs.1,05,916/- after adjusting the amount of Rs.12,000/- as initially paid by Smt. Kailashwati Dhall.  The appeal is accordingly disposed of.  Order of the District Forum are modified with the following directions:

1. The appellant/DDA shall mutate flat No. 72-C Block B-2, Lawrence Road, New Delhi in the name of the complainants/respondents within a period of 15 days after an amount of Rs.93,916/- (Rs.1,05,916-Rs.12,000/-) is paid by them to DDA within a period of 15 days from today.
2. DDA shall issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainants/respondents immediately after carrying out the mutation.
3. DDA shall pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants for mental agony and harassment within 30 days failing which interest @18% p.a. shall be payable.”

9.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.  It is contended that the Delhi Development Authority has been asking Mr. V. P. Dhall to deposit the amount time and again.  The complainants were aware of this fact but on one ground or the other, Mr. V. P. Dhall avoided to pay the amount of Rs.1,05,916/-.

10.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant was to deposit Rs.500/- per month as per High Court’s order but they did not pay any heed to those directions and lastly they are enjoying the property for the last so many years and have not paid anything.

11.    All these arguments are bereft of force.  It is surprising to note that the Delhi Development Authority was unable to respond time and again to the requests made by Mr. V. P. Dhall etc.  Representations sent to Delhi Development Authority is just like talking to a brick-wall.  Learned counsel for the petitioner time and again submits that the complainants were sitting silently for so many years but they did not approach the Delhi Development Authority.  This argument is frivolous and shows inaction, negligence and passivity on the party of the Delhi Development Authority.  They have committed an egregious mistake by not approaching the allottee.  It must be borne in mind that Delhi Development Authority is an authority of allotment of houses and consumer is a poor person, who has to depend upon their legal, illegal and non-existent demands.   No demand was ever made.  No notice was ever given.  There is a dereliction of duty on the part of the officers of Delhi Development Authority.  Vice Chairman should muster the courage and order an inquiry.  Wrong doers have to be burdened with the liability which accrued upon the Delhi Development Authority and the public in general.  It is also painful and galling that the higher authorities are prone to turn Nelson’s eye to the indiscipline rather than taking the bull by horns.  Whenever it was the time to act, Delhi Development Authority officers had another fish to fly.  Unfortunately, this country is dealing with snooty bureaucracy.  The Delhi Development Authority could have sent a notice immediately and demanded the amount.

12.    Consequently, the revision petition is lame of strength and is accordingly dismissed

13.    A copy of this order be also sent to the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority directly.

14.    The revision petition is dismissed.  We would have imposed a very heavy cost upon the petitioner but since it is pointed out that the respondents/complainants are enjoying the benefit of that flat for a long time, therefore, we refrain from imposing any further costs.