Violation of terms and conditions of the license and the prohibition of having more than one plot in one's name influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The Petitioner seeks to challenge the Order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi dismissing the appeal filed under Section 45 of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as `DUSIB Act') by the Petitioner herein and confirmed the Order dated 23.07.2022 passed by the Director (JJR), DUSIB and Order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the Deputy Director (JJR), DUSIB informing the Petitioner that the competent authority has cancelled the allotment of plots bearing Nos.P2/663 & P2/634, JJ Colony, Sultan Puri, Delhi-110086.

2. It is stated that the plots bearing Nos.P2/663 and P2/634, JJ Colony, Sultan Puri, Delhi-110086 were allotted to one Sh. Gurnam Chand S/o Ram Singh and Sh. Naresh Gupta S/o Sita Ram respectively. It is stated that Sh. Gurnam Chand S/o Ram Singh and Sh. Naresh Gupta S/o Sita Ram sold the plots to one Sh Dinesh S/o Mohar Singh within two months of the allotment by way of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit receipt etc,. It is stated that further Sh. Dinesh S/o Mohar Singh sold the Plot No.P2/663 to Sh Ram Kaushal who is the father of the Petitioner herein and Plot No.P2/634 sold to Smt. Mali Devi who is the mother of the Petitioner herein by way of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit receipt etc. It is stated that the Petitioner herein inherited the aforesaid plots after the death of his father and mother respectively.

3. It is stated that in 2017, a survey on the plots was conducted by the Respondent and a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 01.03.2018 stating that the plots have been amalgamated which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment of license.

4. It is stated that, thereafter, a Final Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner directing the Petitioner to submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 01.03.2018, failing which ex-parte order will be passed without further notice to the Petitioner. Since no reply was received from the Petitioner, an ex-parte Order dated 13.12.2018 was passed by the DUSIB cancelling the allotment of plots and consequently, an Eviction Order dated 09.01.2019 was also issued against the Petitioner by the Executive Engineer (C-3), DUSIB.

5. Material on record indicates that after the Eviction Order dated 09.01.2019, which had been corrected by a Corrigendum dated 23.01.2019, was challenged before the Lt. Governor and the challenge was rejected by an Order dated 08.09.2021 by the Lt. Governor on the ground that the appeal had been preferred by a purchaser. The Lt. Governor held that terms and conditions under which the properties were given, prohibited transfer of the plots in question. The Petitioner had filed another application contending that the appeal before the Lt. Governor was not against both orders and further the cancellation order had been passed without affording a hearing to the Petitioner. A second Eviction Order dated 25.05.2022 was also passed by the Executive Engineer (C-3), DUSIB. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal against the second Eviction Order dated 25.05.2022 before the Director (JJR) stating that he is a bona fide owner of the plots and entitled to the benefit of the scheme of freehold policy which had been brought out for the benefit of the bona fide purchasers of the property.

6. Material on record further indicates that a hearing was afforded to the Petitioner and during the hearing, the Petitioner stated that against the Order dated 13.12.2018, no appeal had been filed since he had not been provided with a copy of the Order dated 13.12.2018. The Appellate Authority noted that the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor had already rejected an appeal vide Order dated 08.09.2021 filed against the Order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Executive Engineer (C-3), DUSIB. The Appellate Authority found that in the earlier round, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor upheld the eviction order on the ground that the Petitioner was a purchaser of the plots a