Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA, J.
Krishan Chander - Petitioner
Versus
D.D.A. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13302 of 2005, CM APPL. 3215 of 2021
Decided On : 15-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. M. K. Singh, Advocate.

Cancellation of allotment for failure to pay dues within a stipulated timeline is legally valid where the delay exceeds the permissible condonable limit established by policy. Furthermore, dispatching a show cause notice to an allottee’s last registered address constitutes adequate procedural compliance regardless of local service failure.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Cancellation of property allotment for non-payment of installments within stipulated timeline - Challenge to cancellation on grounds of arbitrariness, discrimination, and violation of principles of natural justice - Adherence to contractual terms regarding payment is mandatory - Delay beyond the specified condonable limit under the governing policy renders the cancellation valid - Issuance of show cause notice to the last recorded address is sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice even if the notice is returned unserved. (Paras 3, 27.1, 30, 32, 35)

(B) Service of notice - Compliance with natural justice - The requirement is to prove dispatch to the address provided by the allottee - Absence of delivery due to the allottee's change of address without notification does not vitiate the cancellation process when notices were sent to the recorded address. (Paras 27.2, 35)

Facts of the case:
An allottee filed a petition challenging the cancellation of their residential property allotment due to defaults in the payment of installments. After the expiry of the deadline, the authority issued a show cause notice and subsequent cancellation. The allottee argued that the cancellation was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated principles of natural justice due to lack of notice. Furthermore, arguments were presented regarding the lack of infrastructural amenities at the allotted site.

Findings of Court:
The authority acted within the terms of the allotment letter. The delay in payment significantly exceeded the maximum limit permissible under the relevant administrative policy. Parity with other cases was not established as those instances were materially different. The issuance of notice to the provided address satisfied necessary procedural requirements.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of allotment due to non-payment was arbitrary or discriminatory, and whether the service of show cause notice was sufficient to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Contractual obligations regarding time-sensitive payments must be strictly adhered to; failure to pay within the allowed scope of an administrative policy justifies cancellation, and the dispatch of official correspondence to a last known registered address constitutes sufficient notice to the recipient.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. prayer for judicial review against administrative cancellation of property allotment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual basis of allotment, failure to meet payment schedules, and subsequent cancellation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. procedural history and timeline of judicial interventions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. petitioner's challenge based on arbitrary action and breach of natural justice. (Para 26)
5. respondent's defense citing policy non-compliance and valid procedural service. (Para 27)
6. court's analysis confirming limited administrative discretion in policy-governed allotment. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
7. final holding that administrative cancellation was lawful and procedurally correct. (Para 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking, inter alia, following prayers:

“(a) issue a writ declaration, declaring the act of the respondent authority in canceling the allotment of plot bearing No.48, Pocket B-4, Sector-17, measuring 60 Sq.Mtrs. in Rohini Phase II Residential Scheme as being totally illegal, arbitrary and unjustified; and

(b) issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the decision dated 13/05/2005 as communicated vide letter dated 26/07/2005; and

(c) issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent authority to hand over the possession of plot bearing No.48, Pocket B-4, Sector-17, measuring 60 Sq.Mtrs. in Rohini Phase II Residential Scheme to the petitioner;”

2. The Petitioner has challenged the decision dated 13.05.2025 communicated vide letter dated 26.07.2025, whereby the Respondent has cancelled the allotment of the plot admeasuring 60 sq. mtrs. bearing No. 48, Pocket B-4, Sector -17 in Rohini Phase-II Residential Scheme, Delhi (“Plot”) and has sought direction to the Respondent to handover the possession of the Plot to the Petitioner.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In 1981, the Petitioner was registered with the Respondent under the Rohini Residential Scheme. After 22 years, on 01.09.2003, the Petitioner was allotted the Plot vide Allotment-cum-Demand Letter dated 01.09.2003 to 05.09.2003 (“Allotment Letter”).

4. The Allotment Letter stated that in the computerised draw held on 11.06.2003, the Petitioner was allotted the Plot on perpetual lease hold basis subject to fulfilment of terms and conditions of eligibility as contained in the Brochure of registration. The Petitioner was required to pay the premium as per the schedule provided in the Allotment Letter. Accordingly, the Petitioner was required to pay a total amount of Rs. 7,18,872/- as under:

5. On 04.11.2003, the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,38,822/-, being 35% of the premium amount with the Respondent and also submitted the relevant documents.

6. It is the Petitioner’s case that, since he was residing in Canada, he had authorised his brother, Sh. Parshotam Lal, to liaise with the Respondent on his behalf. Accordingly, the Petitioner had remitted the requisite amount to his brother for deposit with the Respondent. However, owing to the serious illness of his wife, who subsequently passed away, the said amount was utilised towards her medical treatment.

7. The Petitioner claims that he had remitted the funds once again, pursuant to which the balance amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- was deposited on 11.04.2005.

8. Vide letter dated 26.07.2005, the Respondent informed the Petitioner that the allotment of the Plot had been cancelled by the competent authority on account of non-payment of the premium within the stipulated time. It was further stated therein that the said decision had earlier been communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 13.05.2005, whereby the Petitioner had been requested to submit the requisite documents to facilitate refund; however, the said communication was received back undelivered. Accordingly, the Respondent once again called upon the Petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHITEJAS KARIA, J.Krishan Chander - PetitionerVersus D.D.A. - RespondentW.P.(C) 13302 of 2005, CM APPL. 3215 of 2021Decided On : 15-06-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA, J.
Krishan Chander - Petitioner
Versus
D.D.A. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13302 of 2005, CM APPL. 3215 of 2021
Decided On : 15-06-2026