MEENA KANODIA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/DDA to allot a plot admeasuring 90 sq. meters as per her priority number in MIG category under the Rohini Phase IV Residential Scheme, 1981.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that she was registered under HUDCO Transfree quota for allotment of a plot under the aforesaid Scheme. The registrants were allowed to exercise option of allotment of 60 or 90 sq. meters plots under the MIG category. The petitioner exercised her option for a 90 sq. meters plot. However, she was not declared successful in the draw of lots held prior to the year 1989. In the year 1999, due to limited availability of land, Government of India decided to limit the size of the plot to be allotted to the remaining applicants under MIG category to 60 sq. meters. The petitioner's priority finally matured on 16.6.2003. Pertinently, it was the first draw of lots held by the respondent/DDA after the decision taken by the Government restricting the size of the plot for allotment to 60 sq. meters. IT is an admitted case that while conducting the draw of lots held on 16.6.2003, some priorities, including that of the petitioner, were missed by the computer due to furnishing incomplete date of birth of the registrants at the time of submission of their applications for registration.

(3.) VIDE letter dated 24.6.2004 (Annexure P-5), the respondent/DDA had informed the petitioner that after 29.3.1996, no applicant could be allotted a plot of 90 sq. meters and that the petitioner was also not eligible for such an allotment. It was however stated that though her allotment stood cancelled according to the terms and conditions laid down in the demand-cum-allotment letter bearing block dates 19.1.2004 to 27.1.2004, in case she needed further time to make payments of premium of the allotted plot, she could be granted an additional period of 180 days from the due date of installment, subject to payment of restoration charges and interest in case she would apply for the same. Despite receiving the aforesaid communication addressed by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner, she failed to apply for restoration of the plot. Nor did she deposit any part of the principal amount or interest in that regard. As a result, a notice to show cause dated 20.9.2004 (Annexure P-6) was issued by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner calling upon her to show cause within a period of 15 days as to why the allotment that had been made in her favour, should not stand automatically cancelled, as she had not applied to the DDA for extension of time, in terms of the earlier letter dated 24.06.2004.