NANIK R PAHILAJANI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Ed. facts : Petitioner is a citizen of India. In 1982, DDA announced registration for Vth Self Financing Scheme (SFS) and petitioner applied for it on 11.8.82. One of the condition was that applicant must not own a residential house in Delhi and if he is joint owner his share should not exceed 75 sq. yds. He was not entitled to this latter limit if house/flat is built by DDA or land owning Department. On 15.1.84, petitioner was informed that he had been allotted a flat at Sarita Vihar and he should pay the estimated cost by 4 instalments which petitioner did. He thus paid full sum of about Rs. 2 lakh by 21.12.89. Possession was not being given to him in spite of numerous written requests and he was forced to make personal enquiries when officials of DDA told him that they were contemplating cancellation of allotment as he owned a quarter. Petitioner then filed the W.P. contending that the quarter owned by him was sold away on 15.3.831. After detailing above facts, Judgment proceeds :

(2.) The W.P. has been contested by the respondent and a counter affidavit has been filed by Shri C.P. Tripathi, Director (Housing) of the respondent. The factum of the respondent being amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court is not denied. It has also been admitted that the petitioner got himself registered for a Category-11 House under the Vth SFH Registration Scheme, 1982 and about the allotment of Flat No. C-583 as also the payment of the total amount of instalment, as claimed by the respondent. It has, however, been pleaded by the respondent, that only such persons were eligible for the registration, who did not own residential house or plot in full or in part on lease-hold or free-hold basis in New Delhi, Delhi and Delhi Cantonment, either in his/her own name or in the name of his/her wife/husband or in the name of his/her minor or dependent children. There was a stipulation that if the individual share of the applicant in the jointly owned plot under the residential house was less than 62.7 sq. mtrs. (75 sq. yds.) an application for the registration of a flat could be given and that as per the second clause, a person who had already been allotted a housel flat constructed by the DDA or any other land owning department and which is even less than 62.7 sq. mtrs. (75 sq. yds) shall not be eligible for registration of another flat and since the petitioner had owned a free-hold house measuring 25 sq. mtrs , he was not eligible for registration/allotment under the said scheme. Reliance was placed upon Clause 16 of the aforseaid SFS which reads

(3.) It has been pleaded that the petitioner got himself registered under this Scheme and made the payments at his own risk and responsibility, since it was not possible for the respondent to check the eligibility of the applicants at the time of registration, and that it is only on account of a lapse on the part of the petitioner that he has made the payments and so he can not be permitted to take advantage of his own lapse and thus, the respondent has rightly declined to hand over the possession of the flat in question to the petitioner. It is also pleaded that a show cause notice (SCN) has also been issued to the petitioner to show cause why the allotment be not cancelled. It is also claimed that no discrimination has been done against the petitioner and it has been denied that any similar situated persons as the petitioner, have been given any benefit, but the petitioner has been denied. It is also claimed that the mere acceptance of the payment by the respondent does not give any right or entitlement to the petitioner.