Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Siianti Swaroop Singhal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Siianti Swaroop Singhal vs Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 22, 1990
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/694120

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Writ Petition No. 1674 of 1989
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Property
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Siianti Swaroop Singhal

Advocate H.N. Salve,; Nisha Bagchi and; Parag Chawla, Advs

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
40(1990)DLT337

Excerpt

- .....the petitioner having acquired that right by way of a will the respondents are obliged to allot alternative property which they did. in order to put the: matters beyond any doubt, counsel for the petitioner has placed on record affidavits of the other heirs of shri l.c. singhal in which they have stated that they, namaly, minoo devi and gopal krishan, accept the will executed- by shri l.c. singhal in favor of the petitioner. (6) no such affidavit has been filed obviously for the reason that the contention of the petitioner is unassailable. (7) learned counsel for the petitioner informs that though the money which had been paid by the petitioner to the respondents has been sought to be returned by issuing a cheque in favor of the petitioner, the petitioner has not in fact encased the same. (8) we accordingly allow this writ petition and quash the cancellation order no. f. 20 (31) 88 impl. dated 2.12.2988. (9) the cheque for rs. l,33,695.00 which had been sent by the respondents to the petitioner has been handed back to the counsel for the respondents in court today. this being so, the sale consideration as demanded by the respondents is still with them, and the petitioner has not got the same back. as such, we issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over possession of the shop/stall bearing no. s-39 in phase i, rewari line, delhi to the petitioner within four weeks from today. (10) there will be no orders as to costs.

Full Judgment

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) The challenge in this writ petition to the cancellation of allotment of Shop/Stall No. S-39 in Phase I, Rewari Line, Delhi.

(3) The case of the petitioner is that in 1963 the Delhi Administration had acquired 7 Big has and 8 his was of land belonging to Shri L.C, Singhal, the father of the petitioner. Shri L.C. Singhal expired in 1976 and the petitioner is stated to be the only heir in view of a Will which had been executed by his father in his favor. Under the scheme of the large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi alternative property was to be allotted with a view to rehabilitate the erstwhile owners. The petitioner had made an application for such alternative allotment and deposited the earnest money of Rs. 2000.00 . In the draw of lots held on 24th June. 1988 the petitioner was allotted a Shop/Stall bearing No. S-39 in phase I, Rewari Line, Delhi and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,13,695. The petitioner was also required to handover the original certificate. The requisite payment was made and the certificate which was available with the petitioner was also submitted. Suddenly the impugned order was passed on 2nd December, 1988 cancelling the allotment on the ground that the original Lac certificate in the name of the petitioner had not been furnished. It is this which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(4) It is not disputed that land of the petitioner's father was acquired. If the petitioner's father had been alive, he would have been entitled to alternative allotment. The right which was acquired by the petitioner's father was as valuable right which came into existence at the time of the acquisition of the land of the petitioner's father. This right vested in the petitioner by reason of the execution of the Will and it is difficult to understand how the D.D.A. expects a certificate from the Land Acquisition Collector-regarding acquisition of land and which certificate should be in the name of the petitioner. As far as the Land Acquisition Collector is concerned, he can issue a certificate only in respect of a person who was the owner of the land at the time of the acquisition, that was the petitioner's father. The petitioner having acquired that right by way of a Will the respondents are obliged to allot alternative property which they did. In order to put the: matters beyond any doubt, counsel for the petitioner has placed on record affidavits of the other heirs of Shri L.C. Singhal in which they have stated that they, namaly, Minoo Devi and Gopal Krishan, accept the Will executed- by Shri L.C. Singhal in favor of the petitioner.

(6) No such affidavit has been filed obviously for the reason that the contention of the petitioner is unassailable.

(7) Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that though the money which had been paid by the petitioner to the respondents has been sought to be returned by issuing a cheque in favor of the petitioner, the petitioner has not in fact encased the same.

(8) We accordingly allow this writ petition and quash the cancellation order No. F. 20 (31) 88 Impl. dated 2.12.2988.

(9) the cheque for Rs. l,33,695.00 which had been sent by the respondents to the petitioner has been handed back to the counsel for the respondents in Court today. This being so, the sale consideration as demanded by the respondents is still with them, and the petitioner has not got the same back. As such, we issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to hand over possession of the Shop/Stall bearing No. S-39 in phase I, Rewari Line, Delhi to the petitioner within four weeks from today.

(10) There will be no orders as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial