Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1641

2009(7) Supreme 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and G. S. Singhvi, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority — Petitioner
versus
Jitender Pal Bhardwaj — Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27181 of 2009
(CC 14775/2009)
Decided on : 09-10-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Adv., Vishnu B. Saharya (for M/s. Saharya & Co.) Advs., with him for the Appellants.

IMPORTANT POINT
When the term of exemption is specific and unambiguous, it is not possible to restrict its applicability or read into it, a meaning other than the plain and normal meaning, on the assumption that the general object of the Scheme was different from what is spelt out in the term.

Headnote:Special Leave Petition – Allotment of plot measuring 60 sq.m, to respondent by appellant authority – Cancellation of allotment on ground that respondent was already the owner of a flat- Respondent’s case that when he made application for allotment, he did not have any land, plot or flat and it was in the year 1994, he had acquired a flat measuring 62.22 sq.m which was less than 65 sq.m and therefore his eligibility for allotment of a plot by DDA,was not affected – Single Judge allowed writ petition and quashed the cancellation of allotment, holding that there was no violation or breach on part of respondent – Appeal filed by DDA – Dismissed by Division Bench –Appeal – Entire issue depended upon interpretation of Clause 1(ii) of the Terms and Conditions of the Rohini Scheme – The said Clause made an applicant ineligible for allotment, if the applicant or his/her spouse and minor children own or hold in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantonment any residential plot of land or a house either in full or in part either on leasehold or freehold basis, or any residential flat on hire-purchase basis- There was however an exemption – Any individual share held by applicant in a jointly owned plot or land under residential house which was less than 65 sq.m, would not be considered to be a disqualification or ineligibility for allotment – Contention of DDA that said exemption was intended to apply only in regard to holdings by joint family members or co – owners and not in regard to ownership of an apartment was held unsustainable-Single Judge was satisfied on the material produced that the acquired flat measured only 62.22 sq.m, which was less than 65 sq.m – Hence Special Leave Petition held liable to be dismissed (Paras 6 to 10)
       Facts of the Case :
        Plot measuring 60 sq.m, was allotted to respondent by appellant authority herein in the instant case. Said allotment was Cancelled on ground that respondent was already the owner of a flat. Respondent’s case that when he made application for allotment, he did not have any land, plot or flat and it was in the year 1994, he had acquired a flat measuring 62.22 sq.m which was less than 65 sq.m and therefore his eligibility for allotment of a plot by DDA,was not affected.Single Judge allowed writ petition and quashed the cancellation of allotment, holding that there was no violation or breach on part of respondent. Appeal filed by DDA was Dismissed by Division Bench.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Entire issue depended upon interpretation of Clause 1(ii) of the Terms and Conditions of the Rohini Scheme.The said Clause made an applicant ineligible for allotment, if the applicant or his/her spouse and minor children own or hold in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantonment any residential plot of land or a house either in full or in part either on leasehold or freehold basis, or any residential flat on hire-purchase basis. There was however an exemption. Any individual share held by applicant in a jointly owned plot or land under residential house which was less than 65 sq.m, would not be considered to be a disqualification or ineligibility for allotment.Contention of DDA that said exemption was intended to apply only in regard to holdings by joint family members or co – owners and not in regard to ownership of an apartment was held unsustainable.Single Judge was satisfied on the material produced that the acquired flat measured only 62.22 sq.m, which was less than 65 sq.m. If DDA wanted to bar everyone owning a plot/house/flat from securing an allotment, it could have made its intention clear by simply providing that “anyone owning or holding a long term lease, any plot/house/flat in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantonment area, will be ineligible for allotment under this scheme”. But DDA chose to make the eligibility clause subject to an exemption. If it chose to exempt certain categories, such exemption had to be given effect.Hence Special Leave Petition was held liable to be dismissed

ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. More than 28 years ago, on 23.3.1981, the respondent made an application to the Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’ for short) for allotment of a plot under the Rohini Scheme. The eligibility requirement prescribed in clause 1(ii) of the Terms and Conditions of the Scheme is extracted below:

“The individual or his wife/her husband or any of his/her minor children do not own in full or in part on lease-hold or freehold basis any residential plot of land or a house or have not been allotted on hire-purchase basis a residential flat in Delhi/New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment. If, however, individual share of the applicant in the jointly owned plot or land under the residential house is less than 65 sq.m, an application for allotment of plot can be entertained. Persons who own a house or a plot allotted by the Delhi Development Authority on an area of even less than 65 sq.m, shall not, however, be eligible for allotment.”

When he made the application in 1981, neither the respondent nor any of his family members owned any land or plot or flat in Delhi and gave declaration to that effect.

3. Nearly, a quarter century later, in a computerized draw, respondent was allotted plot No.158, Block/PKT-C2, Sector-28, Rohini, measuring 60 sq.m, vide letter of allotment dated 3/7.10.2005. As required by DDA in its communication dated 11.3.2006, the respondent submitted necessary documents and affidavits under cover of his letter dated 31.3.2006 wherein he disclosed, in pursuance of the above eligibility condition, that he had acquired a flat measuring less than 65 sq.m in United India Apartments (Flat NO. 151/A), Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi. He also deposited the entire premium in regard to the allotted plot.

4. After issuing a show cause notice dated 28.2.2007, DDA by communication dated 28.5.2007, cancelled the allotment on the ground that the respondent was already the owner of a flat. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the High Court. He submitted that when he made the application for allotment, he did not have any land, plot or flat. He further submitted that in the year 1994, he had acquired a flat measuring 62.22 sq.m which was less than 65 sq.m and therefore his eligibility for allotment of a plot by DDA, was not affected. He also produced a certificate from the concerned society and other documents to show that the flat measured less than 65 sq.m. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellation of allotment, holding that there was no violation or breach on the part of respondent. The appeal filed by DDA was also dismissed by a Division Bench. Leave to Appeal is sought in respect of the said order.

6. The entire issue depends upon the interpretation of Clause 1(ii) of the Terms and Conditions of the Rohini Scheme. The said Clause makes an applicant ineligible for allotment, if the applicant or his/her spouse and minor children own or hold in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantonment : (i) any residential plot of land or a house either in full or in part either on leasehold or freehold basis, or (ii) any residential flat on hire-purchase basis. There is however an exemption. Any individual share held by the applicant in a jointly owned plot or land under the residential house which is less than 65 sq.m, will not be considered to be a disqualification or ineligibility for allotment.

7. The first ground urged by the petitioner is that the flat acquired by the respondent in 1994 measures 65.79 sq.m which was in excess of 65 sq.m. This contention raised before the Division Bench was rejected on the ground that the learned Single Judge was satisfied on the material produced that the acquired flat measured only 62.22 sq.m, which was less than 65 sq.m and DDA did not contest or deny the same before the learned Single Judge.

8. The DDA next contended that the only exception to the eligibility condition that the allottee should not own or hold a property in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantonment, w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1641

2009(7) Supreme 113SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR. V. Raveendran and G. S. Singhvi, JJ.Delhi Development Authority — PetitionerversusJitender Pal Bhardwaj — RespondentSpecial Leave Petition (C) No. 27181 of 2009(CC 14775/2009)Decided on : 09-10-2009

IMPORTANT POINT When the term of exemption is specific and unambiguous, it is not possible to restrict its applicability or read into it, a meaning other than the plain and normal meaning, on the assumption that the general object of the Scheme was different from what is spelt out in the term.

2009(7) Supreme 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and G. S. Singhvi, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority — Petitioner
versus
Jitender Pal Bhardwaj — Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27181 of 2009
(CC 14775/2009)
Decided on : 09-10-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
When the term of exemption is specific and unambiguous, it is not possible to restrict its applicability or read into it, a meaning other than the plain and normal meaning, on the assumption that the general object of the Scheme was different from what is spelt out in the term.