Shri Kishan Lal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Shri Kishan Lal vs Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 10, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/696188

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/696188
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mr. Manmohan Sarin, J.
Decided On: May 10, 2001
Case Number: CW. No. 194 & CM. 301/2000
Subject: Property;Civil

Case Summary

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

Housing - Allotment--Direction sought for handing over,possession of a flat--Petitioner seeking allotment of particular flat--Allotment does not mention the same--Petition dismissed--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226--Writ.;The allotment letter issued in the case of Mr. Dttggal has been pentsed. The said allo...

Key legal issue: Property;Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shri Kishan Lal

Advocate Mr. K.C. Dua, Adv

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Advocate V.K. Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 2001(60)DRJ650

Excerpt

housing - allotment--direction sought for handing over,possession of a flat--petitioner seeking allotment of particular flat--allotment does not mention the same--petition dismissed--constitution of india, 1950, article 226--writ.;the allotment letter issued in the case of mr. dttggal has been pentsed. the said allotment letter also carries 'pocket c'. tile-respondent's stand that flats in ''shivam enclave' block were described and identified as 'pocket c' is borne out as correct by the lay out plan and the allotment letter in favor of mr. duggal. the allotment letter of petitioner does not mention 'pocket c'. - ordermanmohan sarin. j (oral)1. rule.with the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to hand over possession of flat no.22-c, iind floor, phase-ii, jhil mil area, delhi or alternatively hand over possession of a similar flat in jhil mil area. if possession of the above flat cannot be handed over.3. learned counsel for the petitioner, mr. k.c. dua submits that petitioner was entitled to flat no. 22-c, phase ii, shivam enclave, jhil mil colony, delhi. however, the respondent/dda has allotted flat no.22-c, iind floor, phase-ii, jhil mil colony.the crux of the problem appears to be that in the jhil mil colony there is a block having a cluster of flats, which has come to be popularly known as 'shivam enclave'. it appears that the cluster of flats in the block known as 'shivam enclave' are preferred and coveted flats, as compared to rest of the jhil mil colony. petitioner naturally seeks an allotment of a flat at 'shivam enclave'. there is no dispute with regard to their being an allotment in favor of the petitioner.4. learned counsel for the respondent mr.v.k. sharma, urged that respondent/dda is willing to give possession of the flat that has ben allotted to the petitioner. however, petitioner has not been willing to take the same and instead insisting on the allotment of flat no.22-c, phase ii, shivam enclave, jhil mil colony, delhi i.e. in the cluster of flats at shivam enclave. mr. sharma clarified that the cluster of flats in shivam enclave is referred to and identified as 'phase ii, pocket c group flats'. the allotment in favor of the petitioner was not in pocket c group flats. to satisfy myself as to the correctness of the stand of respondent records of dda were called for. the joint director, dda is present in court with the records. the lay out plan has also been produced before me, in which the flats known as 'shivam enclave'.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin. J (Oral)

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to hand over possession of flat No.22-C, IInd Floor, Phase-II, Jhil Mil Area, Delhi or alternatively hand over possession of a similar flat in Jhil Mil Area. if possession of the above flat cannot be handed over.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.C. Dua submits that petitioner was entitled to flat No. 22-C, Phase II, Shivam Enclave, Jhil Mil Colony, Delhi. However, the respondent/DDA has allotted flat No.22-C, IInd Floor, Phase-II, Jhil Mil Colony.

The crux of the problem appears to be that in the Jhil Mil Colony there is a block having a cluster of flats, which has come to be popularly known as 'Shivam Enclave'. It appears that the cluster of flats in the block known as 'Shivam Enclave' are preferred and coveted flats, as compared to rest of the Jhil Mil Colony. Petitioner naturally seeks an allotment of a flat at 'Shivam Enclave'. There is no dispute with regard to their being an allotment in favor of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr.V.K. Sharma, urged that respondent/DDA is willing to give possession of the flat that has ben allotted to the petitioner. However, petitioner has not been willing to take the same and instead insisting on the allotment of flat No.22-C, Phase II, Shivam Enclave, Jhil Mil Colony, Delhi i.e. in the cluster of flats at Shivam Enclave. Mr. Sharma clarified that the cluster of flats in Shivam Enclave is referred to and identified as 'Phase II, Pocket C group flats'. The allotment in favor of the petitioner was not in pocket C Group Flats. To satisfy myself as to the correctness of the stand of respondent records of DDA were called for. The Joint Director, DDA is present in Court with the records. The lay out plan has also been produced before me, in which the flats known as 'Shivam Enclave' are also shown. Here among the other descriptions, the word 'Pocket C', though written quite dimly, appears. In any case, learned counsel for the respondent has also produced and shown in Court that one Mr. Sushil Duggal, had filed a CWP.No.2854/93. Mr. Duggal, it is stated, had been allotted flat No.22-C, Phase II, in the cluster of flats, known as Shivam Enclave, the allotment of which the petitioner is now seeking. The allotment letter issued in the case of Mr. Duggal has been perused. The said allotment letter also carries 'Pocket C'. The respondent's stand that flats in 'Shivam Enclave' block were described and identified as 'Pocket C' is borne out as correct by the lay out plan and the allotment letter in favor of M. Duggal. The allotment letter of petitioner does not mention 'Pocket C'.

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the apprehension of the petitioner that he is being wrongly denied a flat in the cluster, known as 'Shivam Enclave', is mis-founded.

The writ petition is, accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Shri Kishan Lal vs Delhi Development Authority and ors. Same Subject Property;Civil Same Judge Mr. Manmohan Sarin, J.

Property;Civil