Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANU MALHOTRAM, J.
Amit Kumar Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
W.P(C) No. 8838 of 2015
Decided on : 11-05-2022
DDA - Allotment Cancellation - DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 - Rule 17 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, and the Eligibility Condition 1(ii) of the Brochure of the Rohini Residential Scheme-1981. The court highlighted the interpretation and application of Rule 17, which stipulates the conditions for allotment of Nazul land for residential purposes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation of an allotment by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and restore the plot. The petitioner's father was allotted a plot, which was later cancelled due to non-payment. The petitioner's representation seeking restoration was not determined by the DDA.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the cancellation of allotment despite the delay in filing the petition, as the DDA failed to determine the petitioner's representation. The court also directed the DDA to allot another plot to the applicant to whom the plot was re-allotted.
Issues: The issues included the cancellation of the allotment, delay in filing the petition, and the failure of the DDA to determine the petitioner's representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the DDA's cancellation of the allotment was set aside due to the DDA's failure to determine the petitioner's representation. The court also directed the DDA to allot another plot to the applicant to whom the plot was re-allotted.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court directed the DDA to allot another plot to the applicant to whom the plot was re-allotted.
JUDGMENT :
Anu Malhotra, J.
1. The petitioner vide the present petition seeks the directions for quashing of the impugned cancellation order dated 23.11.2007 issued by the Delhi Development Authority, i.e., the respondent to the present petition, vide which letter No. F.44(1474)04/LSB(Rohini)/44893 dated 23.11.2007, the allotment of plot No. 78, Pocket B-3, Sector-29, measuring 60 sq.mtr. in Rohini Phase-IV Residential Scheme under the MIG category of the petitioner was cancelled as the petitioner’s mother Shakuntala Tripathi w/o Sant Ram Tripathi had already been allotted plot No. 228, Pkt-16, BLK-D, Sector-7, Rohini Delhi and thus the petitioner’s father Mr.Sant Ram Tripathi was not entitled for allotment of any plot from the Delhi Development Authority. The petitioner has also sought directions to be issued to the respondent to restore plot No. 78, Pocket B-3, Sector-29, measuring 60 sq.mtr. in relation to the petitioner also, inter alia apart from seeking the direction for the status of the petitioner’s online representation dated 12.3.2013.
2. The petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the scheme launched by the Delhi Development Authority to provide residential plots under the EWS category and MIG residential scheme, the father of the petitioner Sh. Sant Ram Tripathi applied for an MIG Residential Scheme whereas the mother of the petitioner Smt. Shakuntala Tripathi applied for a plot under the EWS Scheme in the Rohini Residential Scheme. The mother of the petitioner was allotted EWS Plot No. 228, Pkt-16, Block No. D, Sector-7, Rohini Delhi measuring 25.9 Sq. mtrs vide letter dated 10.9.1982 of the Delhi Development Authority, Land Sales Branch, Rohini, and completed all the formalities required by the respondent and deposited the amount demanded by the Respondent and the possession of the plot was handed over to the mother of the petitioner on 30.5.1991 vide possession letter No. F.7(2472)/82 LSB(Rohini), of the Junior Engineer, Rohini Project, DDA.
3. The petitioner submits that in as much as the area of the said plot allotted to the petitioner’s mother was not sufficient for the accommodation of the whole family members and the married sister of the petitioner Smt. Abha Ojha was in urgent need of accommodation, thus out of love and affection, the petitioner’s mother gifted the plot No. 228, Pkt-16, Block-D, Sector-7, Rohini Delhi, vide a notarized gift deed dated 17.9.2003. It is further submitted by the petitioner that vide letter dated 2.8.2004 and 6.8.2004, the father of the petitioner who had also applied under the MIG Scheme was allotted Plot No. 78, Pocket B-3, Sector-29, measuring 60 sq.mtr., in Rohini Phase IV Residential Scheme in the computerized draw held on 26.7.2004.
4. The petitioner has submitted further that the allotment of the plot in the name of his father was cancelled on 23.11.2004 due to non-deposit of the first and second instalments in time and on an application having been filed by the father of the petitioner for the delay in making the payment of premium in the year 2005, the same was regularized on the payment deposited as per demand and on an application having been filed by the petitioner for transfer of the registration of the plot from his old and ailing father Sh. Sant Ram Tripathi to the name of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent and the registration of the plot was transferred in the name of the very petitioner vide letter dated 18.6.2007 issued by the respondent’s Land Sales Branch vide letter No. F.44(1474)04/LSB (Rohini)/2161 and that vide letter 13.7.2007 duplicate possession letter was issued in the name of the petitioner vide letter No. F.44(1474)/2004/LAB (Rohini)/4865 by the respondent through its Land Sales Branch and on 27.8.2007 the possession of plot No. 78, Pocket B-3, Sector-29, measuring 60 sq.mtr. in Rohini Phase-IV Residential Scheme under the MIG category was handed over by the JE, Rohini Project. The copy of the physical possession letter dated 27.8.2007 pl
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
