JITENDER PAL BHARDWAJ Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent launched a housing scheme known as Rohini Residential Scheme 1981 for allotment of plots. The petitioner, who is now 71years of age applied in the said scheme nearly 27 years ago. At the time when he made the application, the petitioner was not the owner of any other property in Delhi. The eligibility condition prescribed in the brochure pertaining to the Rohini residential Scheme, inter alia, provided that any individual who is not a minor may apply for allotment of only one plot if he/she fulfills the conditions laid down therein. Condition No. (ii) is relevant for the purpose of this case and it reads:

(2.) IT appears that the application submitted by the petitioner under the said scheme also contained a stipulation that at the time of allotment of the plot under the scheme, the applicant would submit an undertaking and an affidavit in the specimen provided in the brochure. The specimen of the undertaking and the affidavit read as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1869_ILRDLH17_2008Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE DDA took its own sweet time to make the allotment. With passage of time the needs of the petitioner to acquire a residence for himself and his family naturally became acute, since the DDA was not forthcoming with the promised plot. After 13 years of the petitioner"s registration under the Scheme, the petitioner finally purchased flat No. 151a from an allottee/member of United india Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited known as United India apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091, on the basis of power of attorney, agreement to sell, Will etc. The said flat admeasures 62. 22 sq. meters. On 23. 11. 2004 the said flat was converted from lease hold to free hold upon execution of a conveyance deed. Thereafter, the respondent issued a demand-cum-allotment letter with block dates 03. 10. 2005 " 7. 10. 2005 in respect of plot No. 158, Pocket No. C-2, Sector-28, measuring 60 sq. meters in Rohini phase-IV Residential Scheme. The petitioner paid the entire amount payable under the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter. He was required to furnish the undertaking and affidavit which too have been furnished by him.