RAMESH CHAND Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by this writ petition is seeking quashing of the letter of cancellation bearing No.F.12(598)83 LSB.Rohini dated 13/1/1995, cancelling the allotment of plot No.55, Pocket OO Block 'B', Sector 01, ad-measuring 60 meters, in the Rohini Residential Scheme. Petitioner has also sought a direction for delivery of possession of the said plot and in the alternative for such orders and directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) Petitioner had applied for allotment of a plot vide Application No.61001 in the Rohini MIG Scheme and was duly registered on payment of Rs.5,000.00, acknowledged vide receipt No.20976 dated 30/3/1981. Respondent Delhi Development Authority issued the allotment letter on 28.11.1983 and provisionally allotted the plot in question on perpetual leasehold basis, subject to the balance amount of Rs.6,143.00 being paid. The petitioner duly deposited the sum of Rs.6,143.00 vide challan bearing No.104226 dated 27/12/1983.

(3.) It is the petitioner's case that though he had completed all the formalities, the respondent DDA had chosen to belatedly and illegally cancel the allotment of the plot. The petitioner has produced on record the correspondence with the DDA, wherein initially DDA proceeded on the basis that payment had not been made and issued a letter dated 29/9/1985, which was duly replied by the petitioner by his letter of 29.10.1984, giving full particulars of payment. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued claiming that petitioner's income was found below the prescribed limit and the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of plot under the Scheme. This too was satisfactorily explained by the petitioner, who furnished particulars of the revised return of income in respect of the year in question. Certain documents were also called for by the respondent DDA vide its letter of 21.9.1987, which were duly furnished by the petitioner. Petitioner vide letter of 21.10.1987, furnished the assessment order based on the revised return and requested the respondent to deliver possession of the plot. Petitioner again vide his letter dated 1/9/1988, gave the respondent details of the documents already furnished. It is seen that this correspondence continued, with the petitioner asserting and giving the details of the letters by which the documents sought were furnished. The respondents, however, in a mechanical manner, kept on either ignoring the documents furnished or raised a fresh requirement.