SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Del) 271

High Court Of Delhi
KRISHAN DHAWAN - Appellant
Versus
KRISHAN DHAWAN - Respondent
W.A. 425 of 2004
Decided On : 04/13/2004

Advocates Appeared:
N.R.Sharma, R.K.SAINI

Mis-representation and concealment of material facts can lead to the cancellation of plot allotment and justify the impugned order.

Headnote:

Delay Condonation - Appeal against cancellation of plot allotment - Mis-representation and concealment of material facts - Dismissal of writ petition - Refund of amount deposited - Justification of impugned order

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging the cancellation of plot allotment to the appellant's parents and seeking allotment of a plot in favor of the appellant.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that there was mis-representation and concealment of material facts by the appellant's parents, leading to the cancellation of the plot allotment. The Court directed the refund of the amount deposited by the parents to the appellant after deducting cancellation charges and other requisite charges.

Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility of the appellant's parents for plot allotment, the cancellation of allotment due to mis-representation, and the justification of the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the conduct of the appellant's parents in securing two plots by suppression of material facts justified the impugned order and did not warrant interference.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

R. C. JAIN, J.

( 1 ) THESE are applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the applications are allowed and the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal are condoned. These applications are disposed of accordingly.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27th August, 2003 thereby disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the action of the respondent-DDA in cancelling the allotment of the plots allotted to the father and mother of the appellant and not restoring the plot to one of them and seeking allotment of a plot in favour of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that there was mis-representation and concealment of material facts by filing of false affidavits which has lead to the cancellation of the plots allotted to the parents of the petitioner. However, taking a compassionate view, the Court directed that the amount deposited by the parents of the petitioner may be refunded to the petitioner after deducting the cancellation charges and other requisite charges as per the policy of the Delhi Development Authority within a period of three months from the date of order.

( 3 ) MR. R. K. SAINI, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that under the scheme of allotment of plots by the DDA, both the parents of the petitioner could get themselves registered as they were eligible to do so and had not incurred any disqualification and since before the conveyance deed of the plots in question was registered in favour of the parents of the petitioner, one of them, i. e. the father had surrendered the allotment and, therefore, the DDA was not justified in cancelling the allotment of both the plots made in favour of his parents. The learned Single Judge has taken pains to note the reprehensible conduct of the parents of the appellant in not only applying for registration and allotment of plot under the said scheme of the DDA but even accepting the allotment and further acting by depositing the requisite amount against the two plots and by filing false affidavit and suppressing material facts about the registration and allotment of plots in favour of both of them.

( 4 ) WE are not prepared to accept the contention of Mr. Saini that the parents of the appellant would have incurred disqualification only after a conveyance deed of the plot had been executed in favour of the other. It appears to us that there was a clear attempt on the part of the parents of the appellant to secure two plots by suppression of material facts. In our opinion, on the face of such a conduct, the impugned order is eminently justified and calls for no interference by this Court. Dismissed.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top