S R YADAV Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice be issued to the Respondent to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 8.7.2004. Mr. Anil Sapra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent, accepts notice. The Respondents are granted four weeks' time within which to file Reply to the Writ Petition. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.

(2.) CM No.3609/2004 In some of these petitions I had passed interim Orders to the effect that if the proposed auction is proceeded with, one plot shall be kept reserved for the Petitioner. Thereafter, interim Orders to this effect had not been granted in some of the other petitions because it had been pointed out by learned counsel for the Respondents that the Division Bench had upheld the policy of the DDA to auction plots in LPA No.978/2002 titled Smt.Supla Jain Vs. DDA, decided on 3.9.2003. That decision however does not apply to the f`s of the present case, as shall be evident hereinafter.

(3.) The Scheme with which the Court is presently concerned is the Rohini Residential Scheme, a blue print or Site/Layout Plan of which has been filed in this Court by counsel for the Petitioners. Broadly stated the Scheme is calculated and intended to benefit the economically weaker sections, lower income groups and middle income groups. Of the entire area available 97 per cent is stated by Counsel for the DDA to have been earmarked for allotment to persons/applicants within this social group. So far as the remaining 3 per cent is concerned they were set apart for sale by auction and this policy was advocated/justified for raising resources for the development of the entire area. Accordingly, the wisdom was that by auctioning a small number of plots the benefits would inure to these sections of society.