The court emphasized the importance of timely allotment of plots and the duty of the DDA to act professionally and not cause harassment to the allottees.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 25.04.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8519/2011, titled as Shail Shukla v. DDA, whereby the writ petition filed by the Respondent herein was allowed and the Appellant herein has been directed to hand-over the plot bearing No. 169 Pkt. 12, Sector-2, Rohini, Delhi, admeasuring 60 Sq. Mtrs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plot in question') to the Respondent.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant appeal are as under:

a) It is stated that the Appellant announced a scheme for allotment of developed plots in Rohini, Delhi, under the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981. It is stated that on 27.03.1991, i.e. after about ten years from the date of announcement of the Scheme, the Respondent herein was allotted the plot in question. It is stated that a total cost of Rs. 59,805/- was sought from the Respondent herein and, after adjusting for the amount deposited by the Respondent for registration and interest accrued thereupon, the Respondent paid Rs. 51,310/- in three equal instalments. It is stated that an acknowledgment letter was issued to the Respondent.

b) It is stated that on 08.11.1991, a Demand-cum-Allotment letter was issued to the Respondent by the Appellant herein. It is stated that despite repeated attempts to get the possession of the plot in question, possession of the plot was not handed over to the Respondent by the DDA. It is stated that on 08.12.2005, out of frustration, the Respondent herein sought for the refund of the payments made by her in relation to the plot in question. Vide a communication dated 24.08.2006, the Respondent was asked to meet the Assistant Director, LSB, Rohini. It is further stated that vide a letter dated 13.12.2006, DDA sought certain letters from the Respondent.

c) Material on record shows that vide letter dated 18.07.2008, the Respondent herein submitted all the documents that were sought by the DDA vide letter dated 13.12.2006. It is stated that vide letter dated 29.05.2009, DDA sought the original Demand-cum-Allotment letter dated 08.11.1991, original FDR duly discharged by affixing revenue stamp, and residence proof duly attested by a Gazetted Officer. It is stated that vide letter dated 09.06.2009 the Respondent submitted all documents which were sought by the DDA vide its letter dated 29.05.2009. Both the letters sent by the Respondent herein form a part of the impugned Order and a perusal of the same would show that whatever document were being sought by the DDA, the Respondent herein had already supplied those to the DDA. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge of this Court, as original duly discharged FDR had already been handed over to the DDA, there could be no question of it being supplied to the DDA once again.

d) Despite a lapse of six years, the Appellant neither handed-over the possession of the plot of the land nor did it refund the money of the Respondent. It is stated that vide letter dated 29.08.2021, the Respondent herein withdrew her application for refund of monies and asked for the possession of the allotted land. The request of the Respondent herein was rejected by the DDA.

e) Thereafter, the Respondent herein approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 8519/2011. Vide Order dated 08.06.2012, this Court had directed that one plot shall be kept reserved to be allotted to the Respondent herein. Order dated 08.06.2012 was confirmed on 27.08.2012. In the written submission filed by the DDA, it was recorded that as per the Order dated 08.06.2012, Plot No. 23, Sector-1, Pocket-B, measuring 60 sq. Mtrs. was kept reserved for the Respondent during the pendency of the said writ petition. f) Vide Order impugned herein, the learned Single Judge of this Court found that the DDA had not allotted the plot to the Respondent herein for 15 long years. The learned Single Judge observed that in exasperation the Respondent herein had even filed an application for refund of money and the