$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1697/2023 SMT. RAMESHWARI DEVI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Ms. Poonam, Mr. Ujjal Das, Mr. Manvender Singh and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR......Respondents Through: Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harsh Preet Singh Chadha and Mr. Hridyesh Khanna, Advocates for DDA.

Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for R-2/Central Bank of India.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 28.11.2025 CM APPL. 6480/2023

1. This application is filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 23 days in re-filing the writ petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of

23 days in re-filing the writ petition stands condoned.

3. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1697/2023

4. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) Issuing the direction to the respondent No.1, delhi development authority (DDA), to refund complete amount of Rs. 15,00,452/- (Fifteen Lakhs Four Hundred Fifty Two) along with interest with tune of 24% per annual with cost and expenses incurred on the litigation by the Petitioners. b) Or alternatively Issuing the direction to the respondent No.1, delhi development authority (DDA), to restore the allotment of flat No.53, floor III, Sector 34, Pocket 2 Block B1. Rohini, New Delhi;

c) Or alternatively Issuing the direction to the respondent No.1, delhi development authority (DDA), to allot any alternative flat of the same category, specification;

d) Issuing the direction to the respondent No.2 /Bank to provide the justification and Documents, why the Respondent No.2 1Bank withdraw the amount other than EMIs amounts of Rs. 13500/- without the consent, knowledge, and approval of Petitioners from the above stated loan amount No.3933769021 e) Issuing the direction to the respondent No.2 1 Bank to adjust the amount of Rs. 3,88,370.00/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy), and correct/waive· off the wrong interest and other charges in the loan account by the Respondent No.2 /Bank;

g) awarding the entire costs of the Petition in favour of the Petitioners against the Respondents;

h) any other order in the form of writ of mandamus or any nature of similar writs which this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioners and against the respondents No.1 & 2, in the interest of justice.”

5. Case of the Petitioners as set out in the writ petition is that Petitioner No.1 is the wife of Petitioner No.2, who retired as a Naik from Indian Army after sustaining war injury on 12.03.1989 during the LTTE Peace Mission from 1987 to 1989. After retirement of Petitioner No.2, the family started living in their native village in Uttarakhand. Between 2013 to 2014, Petitioners came to Delhi as their daughter was diagnosed with Blood Cancer and while they were at Delhi they learnt of a Residential Scheme ‘DDA Housing Scheme 2014’ (‘Housing Scheme 2014’) launched by DDA and Petitioner No.1 made an application for allotment of the flat. Petitioner No.1 was successful in the draw of lots and accordingly, an allotment letter dated 28.05.2015 was issued allotting Flat No. 53, Floor III, Sector 34, Pocket 2 Block B1, Rohini (LIG category).

6. It is averred in the petition that Petitioner No.1 applied for housing loan, which was sanctioned by Respondent No.2/Bank and an amount of Rs.12,70,734/- was directly transferred by the Bank into the account of DDA and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by Petitioner No.1 through Cheque bearing No. 708970 dated 23.09.2014. Petitioner No.1 also deposited Rs.75,000/- towards Delhi Government Environment Fund as directed by DDA, in addition to payment of Rs.48,165/- towards Stamp Duty for execution of the Conveyance Deed.

7. It is stated that f