$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 935/2026, CM APPL. 4591/2026, CM APPL. 4592/2026 CHUTAKI ALIAS CHUTKI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Adv.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Richa Dhawan, Ms. Yashita Jain, Advs.

Mr. Handa, Adv. for Ms. Chand Chopra, Adv. (Appearance not given)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 22.01.2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:

“(i) A writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated

28/11/2024 to the extent it adversely affects the petitioner.

(ii) Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners claim for relocation strictly in accordance with the JJ rehabilitation policy.

(iii) Directs the respondent to accept and evaluate the petitioner’s voter list of 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 onward and decide her claim with a reasoned order.”

2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present petition challenges the order dated 28.11.2024 to the extent that the petitioner was required to bring voter list for the year 2012, 2013, 2014 and

2015 to show her name in the voter list.

3. Mr. Handa, learned counsel for the respondents, who appears for Ms. Chand Chopra on advance notice has handed over a final order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, wherein the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The relevant paragraphs read as under:

“55. The material placed on file shows that the Eligibility Determination Committee (EDC) has rightly found that the Appellant/Claimant is not entitled to alternative allotment because as per our discussion above the present Appellant/Claimant was not having a Voter ID Card on the cutoff date of 01.01.2015 issued on the address of the Jhuggi No. 30, T-Huts, Golden Park, Ram Pura, Delhi regarding which she is claiming allotment from DDA and further her name also does not appear in the voter list of the year's 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 (prior to 01-01-2015) & also in the year of survey, therefore, the Appellant/Claimant does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as per the guidelines issued by DDA. Moreover, the material placed on file shows that the Appellant/ Claimant had concealed material facts & had made misrepresentation to the DDA authority and succeeded in getting the survey conducted on the basis of wrong and false facts inspite of the fact that she very well knew that she did not possess requisite documents and does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as per the guidelines issued by DDA. The material placed on file shows that the Appellant/ Claimant with dishonest and fraudulent intention and also in collusion with his family members has tried to cheat & defraud DDA thereby filing a claim on wrong and false facts to maximize allotments from DDA by hook or crook. Thus the documents, Annexure-A to Annexure-W, furnished by the Appellant/Claimant do not create any legal right, title and interest in her favour to make her eligible to seek allotment from DDA. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the Appellant/ Claimant does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as per the guidelines issued by DDA and accordingly the claim of Appellant/Claimant was rightly rejected by EDC.

56. The Appellant/ Claimant has made misrepresentation and also futile attempt to suppress material facts. The Appellant/Claimant does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as per guidelines issued by DDA. Hence the Eligibility Determination Committee has rightly rejected her claim. There is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order bearing No. F01/IEL/ISR/PMAY/DDA/269 dated 11.09.2024. Hence the same is upheld. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.”

4. In this view of the matter, the present petition is infructuous and is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail her legal rights challenging the order dated 12