Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DHARMESH SHARMA
Shyam Sunder Sethi – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for allotment (Para 2) |
| 2. request for cancellation (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. no vested right (Para 17 , 18) |
| 4. review petition dismissed (Para 19) |
ORDER :
REVIEW PET. 408/2024 (For review of order dated 09.09.2024)
1. This order shall decide the application moved by the applicant/petitioner Shyam Sunder Sethi (hereinafter referred as ‘the applicant’) under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”], thereby seeking review and recall of the Judgment dated 09.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 10299/2023 titled as Shyam Sunder Sethi v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. Briefly stated, the applicant invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the respondent/DDA (Delhi Development Authority) (hereinafter referred as ‘the DDA’) on his representation dated 27.05.2022 whereby his application for allotment of Plot bearing No. 1095, Block C-4, Sector-34, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘the subject plot’) was rejected.
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....
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.
Timely action against administrative decisions is essential, as courts cannot condone delays after significant lapses, particularly when property rights have transferred.
The court emphasized that failure to comply with payment directives, as mandated by public notice, results in cancellation of allotment, and timely action to enforce rights is critically important.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and inaction on the part of the petitioner can disentitle them from the relief sought, especially when no right had accrued in their fav....
The cancellation of allotment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with payment terms, emphasizing the importance of adhering to auction conditions and public interest.
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
