Ineligibility under residential schemes does not apply to applicants holding a unit in a multi-storey building if their proportionate ownership share in the underlying land is below the prescribed threshold, regardless of the total plinth area of the individual unit.

JUDGMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the Judgment dated 28.08.2025 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 217/2024 (“Review Petition”) in W.P. (C) No. 8519/2011 (“Writ Petition”) titled as ‘Shail Shukla v. Delhi Development Authority’.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The Appellant introduced a scheme for the allotment of residential plots in Delhi, namely, the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 (“Rohini Scheme”). Under the Rohini Scheme, the Respondent applied for allotment of an MIG Plot by depositing an earnest money amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 02.04.1984.

3. Subsequently, on 16.07.1985, the Respondent was allotted Flat No. 50, A-1, Sector-7, Rohini, in the MIG category (“Flat”), having a plinth area of 69.216 sq. metres together with a courtyard admeasuring 6.82 sq. metres, under the NPRS/HUDCO Scheme, 1979 (“NRPS Scheme”).

4. Thereafter, pursuant to a draw of lots held on 27.03.1991, the Respondent was allotted MIG Plot No. 169, Pocket 12, Sector 24 (“Plot”), admeasuring 60 sq. metres, in Rohini under the Rohini Scheme. An allotment-cum-demand letter dated 08.11.1991 was issued to the Respondent fixing the total consideration at Rs. 59,805/-. After adjustment of the registration amount, a sum of Rs. 51,310/- remained payable by the Respondent. The Respondent made the payment of the said amount as under:

5. Since no letter or offer for handing over possession of the Plot was issued by the Appellant, the Respondent, vide letter dated 20.11.2005, sought refund of the amount paid towards allotment of the Plot.

6. Thereafter, by letter dated 13.12.2006, the Respondent was called upon to submit the requisite documents for processing the refund of the deposit. In compliance therewith, the Respondent submitted the said documents to the Appellant vide letter dated 18.07.2008.

7. As the Appellant neither responded nor refunded the aforesaid amount, the Respondent addressed reminders to the Appellant vide letters dated 23.10.2009, 16.11.2009, and 02.01.2010.

8. Consequently, the Respondent submitted a representation dated 29.08.2011 to the Commissioner and Director of the Appellant, withdrawing the earlier request for refund of the amount paid towards the Plot and seeking delivery of possession thereof. In the said representation, the Respondent further requested that, in the event the Plot was unavailable, an alternate plot in the same sector be allotted to her. However, according to the Respondent, the Appellant informed her that the Plot could not be allotted as it had already been allotted to the next registrant.

9. The Respondent thereupon instituted the Writ Petition, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 25.04.2022 (“2022 Judgement”), wherein it was observed that the Respondent had established her entitlement to delivery of the Plot reserved in her favour, namely Plot No. 23, Sector 1, Pocket B, admeasuring 60 sq. metres (“New Plot”). The New Plot had been secured pursuant to the order dated 08.06.2012 passed in the Writ Petition, whereby the Appellant was directed to reserve a plot for the Respondent until the next date of hearing, and the said direction continued during the pendency of the Writ Pe