Delhi High Court
Jaswant Singh vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 7 August, 2013
Author: Manmohan
#22
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3063/2013 & CM APPL. 5800/2013
JASWANT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Manuj Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate
% Date of Decision: 07th August, 2013.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the respondent-DDA's letter dated 3rd
December, 2002. The petitioner has also sought a direction to respondent-DDA
to transfer Plot No. 97, Block F, Pocket 4, Sector 16 in Rohini Residential
Scheme in the name of petitioner's son Mr. Surjeet Singh.
2. The facts of the present case are that as the petitioner had been allotted
Flat No.45 in Labour CGHS Ltd., Pitampura, New Delhi and Plot No. 97,
Block F, Pocket 4, Sector 16 in Rohini Residential Scheme, respondent-DDA
on 28th February, 2000 issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner for
cancellation of Pitampura Flat. Respondent-DDA vide its letter dated 3rd
December, 2002 also rejected petitioner's request for transfer of Rohini Plot in
the name of his son on the ground that petitioner was not entitled to two DDA
properties. In the said letter, it was stated that petitioner's request for transfer
would only be considered after the petitioner surrendered his first allotment,
that means, Flat No. F-45, Labour CGHS Ltd., Pitampura, Delhi.
3. Mr. Manuj Aggarwal, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
Supreme Court has categorically held in Delhi Development Authority vs.
Jitender Pal Bhardwaj, (2010) 1 SCC 146 that a person who owns a DDA
house or plot less than 65 sq. m. would be eligible for a second allotment. He
points out that in the present case the plinth area of the flat bearing No. F-45,
Labour CGHS Ltd., Pitampura, Delhi is only 22 sq. m.
4. Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, learned counsel for respondent-DDA admits
that the Supreme Court's aforesaid judgment is applicable to the facts of the
present case. He, however, states that as the petitioner had suppressed the fact
of second allotment, respondent-DDA should be allowed to take action in
accordance with law.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the opinion
that in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Delhi Development Authority
vs. Jitender Pal Bhardwaj (supra) as well as this Court's Division Bench
judgment in Delhi Development Authority Vs. B.B. Jain, LPA No. 670/2012,
decided on 5th March, 2013, the petitioner is entitled to a second allotment
inasmuch as the Pitampura flat is less than 65 sq. m. and, therefore, the
prohibition contained in Nazul Land Rules is not attracted. It is pertinent to
mention that in Delhi Development Authority Vs. B.B. Jaini (supra), the
Division Bench held that any allotment by DDA after coming into force of
Nazul Land Rules would be governed by the Nazul Land Rules and not by the
provisions of a Residential Scheme to the extent that the provisions of the
Scheme were contrary to the Nazul Land Rules. The Division Bench also held
that Nazul Land Rules are statutory in character.
6. Consequently, as the restriction of second allotment as envisaged under
the Rohini Residential Scheme is inapplicable to the facts of the present case,
this Court is of the opinion that petitioner has not suppressed any relevant
information. Accordingly, respondent-DDA's Show Cause Notice dated 28th
February, 2000 and communication dated 3rd December, 2002 are quashed and
DDA is directed to transfer petitioner's plot bearing No. 97, Block F, Pocket 4,
Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi in favour of petitioner's son Mr. Surjeet Singh within
a period of twelve weeks.
7. With the aforesaid observations and direction, present writ petition and
application stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
AUGUST 07, 2013
rn
