RAJKUMAR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.4.1997 wherebythe respondent informed the petitioner that the allotment of Flat No. 79, Section 23,Pocket i, Group I at Dwarka allotted in the name of the petitioner had been canceledin terms of the policy of the respondent as the petitioner is an owner of more than 80square yards in property No.15/A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. To the same effect is theletter dated 13.6.1997 which is Annexure 13 to the writ petition whereunder thepetitioner was asked to furnish certain documents for refund of the earnest money,the legality of which is also questioned in the present writ petition .

(2.) Pursuant to an advertisement of a Scheme called Registration Scheme on NewPattern-1979, the petitioner applied for allotment of a flat and deposited earnestmoney of Rs. 4,500.00 on 24.9.1979. A draw of lots also took place for allotment ofsuch flats under the aforesaid scheme and the petitioner was successful in such adraw of lots and by letter dated 14.5.1994, the petitioher was informed that he wasdeclared successful for allotment of Flat No. 37 which is a ground floor flat in Sector21, Pocket 4, the cost of which was quoted at Rs. 3,36,450.00. The petitioner wasasked to deposit the amount of Rs. 3,07,515.84. The petitioner, however, on 3.6.1994filed an application to the respondent praying to withdraw the exorbitant demandnotice and for extension of the date of payment. At that stage, it came to the notice tothe respondent that the petitioner is the owner of a property of more than 75 squareyards being 15/46A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, and accordingly the allotment of the flatin favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the petitioner was informed. Beingaggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the present petition has beenpreferred.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner himself by letter dated11.12.1996 brought it to the notice of the respondent that his mother had expired on28.6.1992 leaving behind a registered Will. In the said letter he had also sought forextension of time for making confirmation deposit of Rs. 20,000.00. It was submittedthat the aforesaid property, a part of which the petitioner has inherited was an HUFproperty and not self-acquired property of the mother of the petitioner and, therefore,the debarring clause which is sought to be invoked by the respondent is notapplicable to the case of the petitioner. The aforesaid contention was refuted by thecounsel appearing for the respondent by the counsel appearing for the respondentcontending, inter alia, that in terms of the eligibility conditions for allotment of a plot,any individual having a share of more than 75 square yards in a jointly owned plot orland under a residential house could not be entitled for allotment of a flat. It wassubmitted that the petitioner admittedly inherited more than 75 square yards in theaforesaid property upon the death of his mother on 28.6.1992 and, therefore, he wasnot entitled to such allotment of a flat in the year 1994 and the said allotment being inviolation of the terms and conditions of the Scheme was rightly canceled by therespondent.