JUDGMENT

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.:

1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 384/2013 (hereinafter “the Impugned Judgment”) whereby the learned Single Judge upheld the cancellation of allotment of Plot No.48, Pocket-1, Block-C, Sector 27, Rohini, New Delhi (hereinafter “the Rohini Plot”) allotted to the Appellant by Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter “DDA”), by its communication dated 04.03.2005.

2. The brief undisputed facts are as follows:-

2.1 The Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 (hereinafter “the Rohini Scheme”) was floated, by DDA, for allotment of plots to persons in need thereof.

2.2 Perpetual leasehold rights in the allotted plots were created by the Rohini Scheme.

2.3 The Appellant registered under the Rohini Scheme on 23.04.1981 and booked a 90 sq. mts. MIG Plot. The Rohini Scheme assured a handover of plots to allottees within a period of 5 years.

2.4 The Appellant was provisionally allotted the Rohini Plot consequent to a draw of lots conducted on 05.01.2004, after a lapse of almost 23 years.

2.5 The demand-cum-allotment / provisional allotment letter as issued by DDA on 19/27.01.2004 (hereinafter “Allotment Letter”) required the Appellant to make a payment in the sum of Rs. 4,08,672/-. Since an amount of Rs. 12,944/- had been paid previously by the Appellant, payments were made to DDA in terms of the Allotment Letter on the following dates:

(i) On 26.03.2004 - Rs. 1,30,091/- (ii) On 21.05.2004 - Rs. 2,04,336/-

(iii) On 12.08.2004 - Rs. 61,401/-

2.6 The Appellant also gave an Affidavit as well as an Undertaking, in the format as prescribed by DDA, towards the allotment. It is not disputed that the Affidavit and an Undertaking, although affirmed on

25.03.2004, were filed with DDA on 14.10.2004.

2.7 Shortly thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 14.12.2004 was issued to the Appellant by DDA (hereinafter “the SCN”) inter-alia setting out that the Appellant also owned another property being Plot No. 217, Deepali Enclave, U.P. Samaj Co-Operative House Building Society, Pitam Pura, New Delhi, admeasuring 180 sq. mts., (hereinafter the “Deepali Enclave Plot”). It was stated in the SCN that such ownership was in violation of the Rohini Scheme. The SCN required the Appellant to show cause as to why the allotment of the Rohini Plot be not cancelled, as the Appellant had filed a false affidavit with DDA.

2.8 The Appellant submitted a response to the SCN. A copy of the said response as available on the record of the learned Single Judge, inter- alia, set forth that the Deepali Enclave Plot had already been sold by the Appellant, prior to submitting the requisite documents with DDA. A copy of the Sale Deed dated 06.09.2004 evidencing the sale of the Deepali Enclave Plot (hereinafter “Sale Deed”), was enclosed with this reply. The Appellant further averred that he had waited for almost 23 years for the allotment of this plot from DDA and due to this delay the Appellant was forced to purchase a flat from the open market to reside in. The Appellant requested that the SCN, issued to him, be withdrawn as on the date of submission of documents to DDA (14.10.2004) the Affidavit filed was not false.

2.9 However, DDA, by communication dated 04.03.2005, addressed to the Appellant (hereinafter “Cancellation Letter”) cancelled the allotment of the Rohini Plot. The Cancellation Letter further stated that, since the Appellant had resorted to concealment of facts, he would neither be entitled to allotment of another plot from DDA, nor refund of the amounts deposited.

2.10 Aggrieved by this cancellation, the Appellant had approached this Court, by way of a Writ Petition, praying that the Cancellation Letter issued by DDA be quashed and DDA be directed to grant him possession of the Rohini Plot. In the alternative, the Appellant had prayed that DDA be directed to return the amounts deposited by the Appellant for the Rohini Plot.

2.11 The learned Single Judge was however, not inclined to in