Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
LACHMAN DASS – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revocation of allotment of shop. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. impact of the 1984 riots on petitioner. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. background on dda's allotment decision. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. petitioner's claims against dda actions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. dda's justification for withdrawal of allotment. (Para 19 , 21) |
| 6. dda's rehabilitation policy for riot victims. (Para 24 , 25 , 27) |
| 7. importance of survey documentation. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 34) |
| 8. evidentiary support for petitioner's claims. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 9. limitations on document requirements for allotment. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 10. court's ruling on improper cancellation of allotment. (Para 45 , 46) |
| 11. court's directives for dda's compliance. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ JAIN, J.
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 21.10.2010 passed by Delhi Development Authority whereby allotment of shop situated at Mangol Puri Industrial Area, which had been allotted to him on 16.04.1985, has been revoked.
2. Petitioner was, earlier, running his business of hardware under the name of style of M/s L.D. Hardware Store.
3. He was doing his such business from a shop bearing no. 16-B situated at Zakhira Chowk, Near Railway Bridg
Cancellation of allotment without proper documentation or consideration of the claimant's history violates principles of natural justice and constitutes a deprivation of vested rights.
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.
Entitlement to challenge allotment requires demonstrating displacement due to construction.
Point of Law : If such wilful disobedience is made out, it is duty of Court to take cognizance of same as contempt - Conduct of Contemnor must be of such nature which undermines dignity of Court and ....
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 court reinforced that public authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice and equitable conduct, and cannot arbitrarily rescind agreements without just cause.
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.
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....
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.
The court affirmed the validity of Paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015, emphasizing the importance of preventing unauthorized construction and maintaining harmonious relations in government quarters.
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
