DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MATA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide application dated 25.2.1981, the respondent Mr. Mata Prasad applied for allotment of residential plot measuring 26 sq. metres in Rohini Residential Scheme of DDA. In the application form, he claimed to be a member of Scheduled Caste category. A Scheduled Caste certificate was also submitted by the respondent. However, instead of including in Scheduled Caste category, the name of the respondent was included in the General Category. Alleging that had his name been included in the Scheduled Caste category, he would have been allotted a Janta Flat way back in the year 1990, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking directions to the appellant DDA to hold a mini draw for allotment of a plot in a developed sector of Rohini to him at the old rates. Though the name of the respondent was later included in the Scheduled Caste category, no draw of lots was held for him. On notice of the writ petition being issued to the appellant, a counter affidavit was filed stating therein that the Competent Authority had vide order dated 21.2.2011 decided to change the category of the respondent from General to SC and thereafter consider him for allotment of Janta Flat under the Rohini Residential Scheme in the next draw of lots, he being a Scheduled Caste registrant, who had not been allotted any plot. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that in view of the aforesaid decision, the respondent would be allotted Janta Flat in the next coming draw.

(2.) When the writ petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant DDA assured the Court that the respondent would be allotted a Janta Plot in the next draw to be held under the Rohini Residential Scheme.

(3.) The respondent filed an application seeking modification of the order dated 2.2.2012 contending that he should be allotted plot in a developed sector of Rohini at the old rates. The learned Single Judge modified the order dated 2.2.2012 by directing the DDA to hold a mini draw for allotting a plot to the respondent out of those plots which are available in those sectors which were available in the year 1990, when the entitlement of the respondent had matured. She rejected the contention of DDA that such an order would amount to permitting the respondent to claim a right of allotment of a particular plot in a developed sector. The learned Single Judge also modified the order dated 2.2.2012 by directing DDA to handover possession of the plot to the respondent within four weeks of his completing the formalities, though the earlier direction was to issue allotment letter to him. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, DDA is before us by way of this appeal.