Delhi Development Authority v. Swaran Chadha

1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and impugns order dated 07.10.2024 passed by learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short „State Commission‟) in Appeal Execution No. 10/2024.

2. Initially, a complaint case was filed by the respondent Ms. Swaran Chadha, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 599/2006. Such complaint was disposed of on 13.05.2008 and the operative part of the aforesaid order reads as under: - “It is further observed that in the interest of justice and in order to uphold the principle of equity, it is required of the O.P. who are a premier housing institution to provide shelter to the registrants waiting with the hope that in the hour of need they would have dwelling house in Delhi for their personal residence. The O.P. are expected to be more magnanimous and less CM(M) 3769/2024 2 technical in cases like the present one where the complainant along with her husband had migrated to USA and after sad demise of her husband has no place of her own to live in Delhi. No doubt, the O.P. can-not be held guilty for deficiency of service in view of our above discussion, yet we find it their bounden duty to consider the case of the complainant more compassionately on humanitarian grounds. They are, accordingly, directed to ensure that in the light of judgment in Writ Petition No.

(C) No. 1909[5] of 2004 (Supra) they should allot a flat to the complainant by entering her name in the next draw of lot to be held after transferring registration of her late husband in her favour. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the complainant cannot be held entitled to any further relief by this Forum. The complaint is disposed off without any order as to the cost. Copy of the order be sent to parties. File be consigned to Record Room.”

3. Aforesaid order was taken in appeal by Delhi Development Authority (in short “DDA”). As informed, such appeal was also dismissed by the learned State Commission and such order has, reportedly, attained finality.

4. Eventually, the complainant was forced to file an execution petition which was registered as Ex. 483/2014. During pendency of the aforesaid execution petition, the judgment debtor i.e. DDA had filed certain objections and the learned District Forum clarified as under: - “In the present case, order under execution was passed on 13.05.2008 however, the date applicable for charging of cost of flat was not specified. As an executing court, this Commission has the power to remove the ambiguity in their own order. Keeping the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) 1909[5] of 2004 in mind, the JD/DDA have to provide the flat to the DH in case it is found that the DH submitted application for change of address with proof. As stated earlier, in the order dated 13.05.2008 it was observed that the decree holder despite being provided two opportunities, failed to submit any proof regarding the applying for change of address and transfer of registration in the name of legal heirs prior to the date of allotment i.e 28.03.2008. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that the rate applicable for the allotted flat would be as per the date of the judgment i.e 13.05.2008, when the right of the complainant to get the flat got crystallised in her favour as prior to this date the DH was not able to place of her change of address on CM(M) 3769/2024 3 record. Therefore, JD is directed to calculate the price of the flat as on 13.05.2008 and offer possession to the DH within one month from the date of passing of this order. The DH is directed to pay the balance amount after calculation of the cost of the flat as prevailing on 13.05.2008 within one month of the Intimation of the calculation by the JD. Order be given dasti.”

5. The above-said order is dated 08.05.2024 and, admittedly, copy of the impugned order was collected by DDA, same day.

6. The prescribed period for challenging the aforesaid order by filing an appeal is 30 days but it is quite obvious that appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period and the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 would also reflect that appeal has been dismissed, solely, on the ground of limitation.

7. Learned State Commission took note of the fact that the impugned order was passed on 08.05.2024 and, therefore, limitation period had expired on 07.06.2024. As per the averments made by DDA and as per the advice of their panel counsel, initially, a petition was filed in this Court. However, such petition was, eventually, withdrawn by them with liberty to avail permissible and available legal remedies. Such petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court on 22.07.2024 and thereafter, appeal was filed before the learned State Commission on 05.08.2024.

8. Contention raised by learned counsel for DDA is that delay was never intended and deliberate and it was merely a procedural one and that too of a very small period. It is stated that under some bonafide belief, they had filed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and when they realized that there was a remedy of filing appeal, they withdrew the aforesaid petition and immediately lodged appeal with the learned State Commission and, thus, learned State Commission should have taken a holistic view of the entire matter and should not have been non-suited them on the ground of CM(M) 3769/2024 4 delay.

9. This Court is, at the same time, conscious of the plight of the complainant.

10. Her husband had applied for the allotment of DDA flat under 4th Rehabilitation Scheme way back in the year 1997. Her husband was serving in Air Force as civilian employee and after taking premature retirement, he migrated to USA and, thereafter, he had applied for the allotment of flat under the aforesaid scheme and despite approaching the Authority time and again to enquire about the allotment, he was always told to wait.

11. He, eventually, passed away.

12. Learned District Forum though observed that complainant had not been able to establish any deficiency in service but keeping in mind the directions passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 19095/2004 (decided on 16.12.2004) whereby similarly situated writ petitioners had been provided with equitable relief, directed DDA to consider the case of the complainant more compassionately on humanitarian grounds and, thus, DDA was directed to allot the flat in next draw of lot to be held after transferring registration of her late husband in her favour.

13. Learned District Forum also observed that the DDA was expected to be more magnanimous and less technical in the cases of such like nature as after the sad demise of her husband, the complainant had no place of her own to live in Delhi.

14. It is indeed unfortunate that despite the fact that equitable relief was passed in her favour way back in the year 2008, she is yet to reap the fruit of such order as the DDA is still contesting the execution, tooth and nail.