Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs V.K. Wahi on 19 July, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th July, 2012
+ LPA No.481/2008
% DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Mr. Rahul
Bhandari, Advs.
Versus
V.K. WAHI .... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.N. Jha, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This Intra-Court appeal impugns the judgment dated 19th May, 2008
of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.1913/2007 preferred by
the respondent by quashing the orders dated 18th July, 2006 and 22nd
January, 2007 of the appellant DDA (cancelling the allotment of plot
no.1369 (ad measuring 32 sq. mtrs.), Pocket A-1, Sector-30, Rohini in
favour of the respondent) and directing the appellant DDA to allot an
alternative plot with the same measurements and near the same sector or in
the same zone to the respondent at the cost as was prevalent on the date of
allotment of the earlier plot to the respondent. The appeal was admitted for
hearing and the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge stayed.
We have heard the counsels.
2. The respondent was a registrant with the appellant DDA since the
year 1981; after a long wait of 23 years he was vide letter dated 2nd August,
2004 allotted the plot aforesaid; though the respondent deposited the
demanded amount but the appellant DDA vide letter dated 18th July, 2006
cancelled the allotment for the reason of the wife of the respondent being
already the owner of another plot in Rohini. The respondent represented to
the appellant DDA that his wife had purchase a 32 sq. mtr. plot in Rohini
from market on power of attorney and had not been allotted the said plot by
the appellant DDA. The appellant DDA however vide letter dated 22 nd
January, 2007 rejected the said representation.
3. The relevant clause in the brochure of the appellant DDA in this
regard is as under:-
"(1) (ii) The individual or his wife/her husband or any of
his/her minor children do not own in full or in part on
leasehold or freehold basis any residential plot of the land
or a house or have not been allotted on hire purchase
basis a residential flat in Delhi/New Delhi or Delhi
Cantonement. If, however, individual share of the
applicant in the jointly owned plot or land under the
residential house is less than 65 sq. mtrs. an application
for allotment of plot can be entertained. Persons who
own a house or a plot allotted by the Delhi Development
Authority on an area of even less than 65 sq. mtrs. shall
not, however be eligible for allotment".
4. It is not in dispute that freehold rights of the plot acquired by the wife
of the respondent were conveyed in her favour on 29th December, 2000 and
that the said fact was not intimated by the respondent to the appellant DDA.
The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has however negatived
the plea of the appellant DDA that the exemption from the general principle
in the clause aforesaid qua plot or house of less than 65 sq. mtr. is applicable
only to jointly held house/plot. It has further been held that for the clause to
be applicable, the allotment of the other plot/house of even less than 65 sq.
mtr. has to be necessarily by the appellant DDA and not when the
acquisition is from the market. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed.
5. We need not delve into the issue in detail. The impugned judgment of
the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the subsequent judgment
dated 9th October, 2009 of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.27181/2009
(CC 14775/2009) titled Delhi Development Authority v. Jitender Pal
Bhardwaj. The counsel for the respondent has also argued and which is not
controverted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA
No.868/2003 titled DDA v. Madan Lal Garg was taken to the Supreme
Court and was upheld by the Supreme Court.
6. In view of the settled legal position, this appeal has to be dismissed.
The counsel for the appellant DDA has however argued that an authoritative
pronouncement considering all facets is required qua the aforesaid clause in
as much as questions qua the same are likely to arise in near future in a large
number of cases pursuant to further allotments made in the Rohini area. We
are however not inclined to take up the matter in vacuum and if at all any
such pronouncement is required, it will be made in appropriate case.
7. We accordingly dismiss the appeal; however the counsel for the
appellant DDA having acted fairly, we refrain from imposing any costs. The
appellant DDA is now directed to comply with the order of the learned
Single Judge within one month from today.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
JULY 19, 2012/pp..
