JAI KANWAR JAIN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner while working as an Upper Division Clerk with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi applied under the Rohini Residential Scheme floated by the DDA in the year 1981 for allotment of a 48 sq. meters plot. The petitioner was made an allotment vide demand -cum -allotment letter with block dates 11.06.2004 to 15.06.2004 of a plot admeasuring 32 sq. meters. The petitioner made payment of the amount demanded by the DDA. Eventually, the allotment made to the petitioner was cancelled by the DDA on 28.11.2007, after issuance of the show cause notice dated 17.09.2007 on the ground that the petitioner, his wife and his son are already in possession of another property bearing No. 112, Pocket F -22, Sector -3, Rohini Residential Scheme, Delhi -85 admeasuring about 90.00 sq. mts. It is this cancellation which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) THE Rohini Residential Scheme contained the eligibility conditions in the brochure issued by the DDA. The eligibility condition as contained in the brochure reads as follows:

(3.) THE petition is opposed by the respondent DDA. It is contended by Ms. Chandra, learned Counsel for the DDA, that it does not matter whether the petitioner has acquired the other property directly from the DDA by way of allotment, or through power of attorney/sale by the original allottee of the DDA. So long as the source from which the property has originated is the DDA, it is sufficient to debar the petitioner in terms of the last para of the aforesaid eligibility conditions. She submits that the argument that the petitioner is eligible on account of the fact that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of allotment at predetermined rates qua the plot acquired by the petitioner, his wife and son, cannot be accepted. In support of this argument, she relies upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in "Dal Chandra Sharma and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority" L.P.A. No. 240/2007 decided on 30.09.2008. In this case the petitioner had privately acquired a property originally allotted by the DDA and was held ineligible for allotment of another property for which he emerged as the successful bidder in a public auction i.e. at Market price and not at predetermined rates which are concessional rates.