DHARMESH SHARMA
Jasbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Dharmesh Sharma, J.)
1. The petitioner is invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby declaring that the act of the respondent/DDA,[Delhi Development Authority] in demanding current cost of the subject property from the petitioner as being arbitrary, illegal or void and for being contrary to the DDA’s policy.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the father of the petitioner, namely, Late Shri Sujan Singh applied for allotment of a plot of land measuring 60 sq. mtrs. in ‘Rohini MIG Scheme’ on 09.03.1981 vide Application No. 47666, making a deposit vide FDR No. 06372, Priority No. 02128 for a sum of Rs.5,000/- vide Receipt No. 7/72. It is the case of the petitioner that his father was allotted a plot bearing No. 92, Pocket 21, Sector - 24, Rohini, Delhi on 27.03.1991. However, the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 02.11.1993 was issued to an old address of the father of the petitioner in the records of the DDA, despite the fact that his father, after selling his old property No. 10255-56, situated in Gali Millwali, Ward No. XII, Mohalla Nawab Gan
The acceptance of a new allotment at current rates precludes a claim for the original premium based on alleged non-receipt of a demand letter.
A review petition cannot be treated as an appeal; it is limited to specific grounds such as new evidence or apparent errors, and prior cancellation of registration extinguishes any claim to allotment....
Judicial review in pricing disputes is limited, and cost revisions are governed by contract law.
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.
The court reinforced that public authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice and equitable conduct, and cannot arbitrarily rescind agreements without just cause.
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 ....
Point of Law – Promotion of good faith and equity as well as to prevention of perpetration of a legal fraud are ideals that must be borne in mind by a Court of equity.
Entitlement to an MIG flat as per the prevailing policy at the time of the order, and the unacceptability of delay in allotment and issuance of the demand-cum-allotment letter based on a later circul....
The principles of natural justice require that an allotment cannot be cancelled without due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The court ruled that undue delays and inaction by the petitioner firm precluded relief in a writ petition regarding composition charges, emphasizing the principle of laches in legal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.