Back
ANU MALHOTRA
Amit Kumar Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT
anu Malhotra, J. - 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 E
The court applied Rule 17 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, and set aside the cancellation of plot allotment due to the petitioner's possession of the plot and non-traceabili....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 17 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, which governs the allotment of Nazul land ....
The relevant date for eligibility under a scheme is the date of application, not the provisional allotment date. Delay caused by the authority in making allotments must be taken into account.
The non-inclusion of a registrant in the allotment draw due to administrative errors must be rectified; however, claims can be barred by unexplained delays.
The importance of exercising vested rights within the specified time frame and the authority's discretion in cancellation of allotment.
The court emphasized the importance of timely action and found the petitioner's case to be barred by laches, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners were not eligible for alternative plots under the Scheme of 1961 and Section 21 of the DDA Act due to the availability of plot....
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
