LILY THOMAS Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate by profession and appears in person, praying inter alia for quashing of the conversion/conveyance deed dated 23.07.1993 and for restoration of the sublease deed of Plot No. C-50, Niti Bagh, New Delhi in her favour. In the alternate, the petitioner has sought cancellation of the conversion made by respondent/DDA in favour of respondent No. 4.

(2.) On 15.12.2011, counsel for respondent No. 1/DDA had stated that though the petitioner and respondents No. 3 and 4 were called upon to appear before Director (R.L.), DDA on 22.11.2011, none had appeared on the said date. She stated that when the matter was placed before the Vice Chairman, DDA for taking a decision, it transpired that the petitioner had appeared before the Vice Chairman, DDA instead of appearing before the aforesaid officer. She further stated that the Director (R.L.), DDA had been directed to issue a fresh notice to show cause to the petitioner and the respondents No. 3 and 4 to appear on 05.12.2011, on which date, the parties had duly appeared.

(3.) On his part, counsel for respondent No. 4 had stated on 15.12.2011 that respondent No. 3 had expired and, therefore, his name was sought to be deleted from the array of respondents. At that stage, the petitioner had submitted that a copy of the decision taken by respondent No. 1/DDA had not been received by her. Resultantly, respondent No. 1/DDA was directed to communicate its decision to the petitioner and respondent No. 3 with a copy placed on record before the next date of hearing.