ANJU KURAR Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LATE Shri S.C. Kurar, husband of the petitioner got himself registered with DDA for allotment of a plot under Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 and died on 7 th August, 2004. The petitioner vide letter dated 18th February, 2010 intimated the DDA about the death of her husband and applied for transfer of the registration under Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 in her name. Along with the application, the petitioner also submitted certain documents required for the purpose of transfer of the registration under her name. Vide communication dated 26th April, 2010, the DDA asked the petitioner to furnish certain additional documents. The case of the respondent/DDA is that while some of the documents sought by it were furnished, not all of the required documents were submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was again asked vide letter dated 24.5.2010 to submit the remaining documents. Those documents came to be submitted by the petitioner by her subsequent letter dated 7th June, 2010 and 12th July, 2010. According to DDA, on a scrutiny of the documents furnished by the petitioner, it transpired that she owned property no. 175, Ground Floor, admeasuring 650 sq. feet (60.69 sqm.) in Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Two DDA officers were deputed to inspect the aforesaid property to determine its area and they reported that the area owned by the petitioner was admeasuring 66.96 sqm.

(2.) THE case of the DDA is that under Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981, a person who owned a house or a plot allotted by DDA, irrespective of its area, is not eligible for allotment and consequently, the petitioner on account of her owning property no. 175, Ground Floor, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi is not eligible for allotment under its Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981. According to DDA, since the petitioner was not entitled to allotment under the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981, her registration was cancelled by the Competent Authority.

(3.) THE issue involved in this petition came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 670/2012 and 709/2012, decided on