Back
ANU MALHOTRA
Bimla Devi Churiwal – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anu Malhotra, J. - The petitioner vide the present petition seeks the quashing of the correspondence dated 16.11.2012 along with the letters referred therein vide which the petitioner was held ineligible for allotment under the scheme of consideration as per her seniority on the alleged ground of non supply of the income tax certificate in 1981 which the petitioner submits is false and seeks directions to the respondent the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot an alternative LIG plot to her in sector 36 or 37 Rohini at the cost prevalent in the year 2012, when her priority matured, but was not included in the draw held on 12.6.2012 and thus missed consideration by the respondent.
2. The petitioner has submitted that in the year 1981 the Respondent DDA launched a scheme known as the Rohini Residential Scheme for the EWS Janta, LIG and MIG category plots of land and that the petitioner applied vide application No. 45461 dated 26.03.1981 to book an LIG plot admeasuring 32 square meters for herself after depositing Rs.2000/- towards registration charges vide receipt No. 15202 dated 26.03.1981. The petitioner has submitted the copy of the receipt dated 26.03.1981 issued by
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 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 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 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 court emphasized that the failure to communicate a stay order rendered the DDA's actions arbitrary, upholding the petitioner's continuous readiness and willingness to complete the contract.
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
