Delhi

North East

CC/75/2021

Smt. Vedwati Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Delhi Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

16 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 75/21

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Vedwati Aggarwal C-41/Z-2, Dilshad Garden Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
	Delhi Development Authority 3rd Floor, D-Block DDA, Vikas Sadan New Delhi-110023	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

02.06.21 01.02.23 16.05.23

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that she is owner of plot 359.55 Sqm., situated at colony no. 1216 named Nehru Vihar, Gokul Puri,     Delhi-93. The Complainant submitted that she submitted her form on 24.01.19 and 30.01.21 vide form no. PM- UDAY/CASE/30012021093024/1. The said conversion process was to be done by DDA in 30 days but Opposite Party failed to do so and paid Rs. 2,950/- to agency appointed by DDA for converting to freehold plot in question through NEFT on 25.12.19. The survey was done and report was sent to DDA vide coordinate file no. DDA/GIS/29012021010838/271234. The first agency conducted survey after delay of 1 year and thereafter Complainant submitted digitalized detail of her plot to DDA directly and application which include survey no. for freehold of Complainant plot. The Complainant stated that till date DDA has done the needful for conversion of her plot as freehold. The Complainant stated that she made many representations through her son to DDA. The Complainant stated that she had sent legal notice dated 10.03.21 to DDA for completing the conversion process of her plot but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. She has prayed for direction to be issued to the DDA for conversion of property no. B-170 (old A-91, Mustafabad, Khasra No. 334/1) Nehru Vihar, Delhi-110094 and also prayed for damages.   

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party that the Complainant on 30.10.21 has applied for grant of ownership rights of vacant plot situated at Nehru Vihar, Gokul Puri, Delhi, which falls government land category as per 528 unauthorised colony list of government land. It is stated that the said land falling under government vacant land category which is more than 250 sqm. is kept in abeyance as per order no. LM/PM/0007/2020/UDAY/Pol./172 dated 08.07.2020 issued by Commissioner (LM) DDA till further order.  

 Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein the Complainant has supported her case as mentioned in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Sh. R.S. Meena, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and we have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that she is owner of the plot in question and she has applied for getting his plot freehold to the DDA. The perusal of the record shows that the Complainant has not filed even a single document to show that she is owner of the plot in question or how she is entitled to get this plot freehold in her favour. The case of the Opposite Party is that the plot in question is a government land.  As per the case of Opposite Party as the plot in question is more than 250 sq. yards and therefore its process is kept in in abeyance as per order no. LM/PM/0007/2020/UDAY/Pol./172 dated 08.07.2020 issued by Commissioner (LM) DDA till further order.
7. The Complainant has not filed even a single document to show that she is the owner of the plot in question nor she has led any evidence as to how she is entitled for the ownership of the said plot. By way of this complaint the Complainant wants a declaration to the effect that she is the owner of the plot in question. This Forum is not a proper Forum to declare the right of the ownership in respect of the plot in question.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 16.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)        Member

(Adarsh Nain)       Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President