Ravindra Mohan Aggarwal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Ravindra Mohan Aggarwal vs Delhi Development Authority

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 01, 1991

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/698191

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/698191
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: S.B. Wad and; Shamim, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 01, 1991
Case Number: Civil Writ Appeal No. 618 of 1990
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ravindra Mohan Aggarwal

Advocate A.S. Chandhiok and; R. Sethi, Advs

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority

Legal References

Reported In: 1992RLR84

Excerpt

- (1) plot no. 13 at site no. 58 kalkaji was auctioned and the petitioners's bid was accepted and auction was confirmed in his favor. the delhi development authority however, is not able to hand over the plot to the petitioner because according to the d.d.a. the plot is in the green belt. it is for dda to explain as to how a plot in the green belt was even initially put to auction, but in any case it was not a fault of the petitioner that he has successfully bid in the auction and the auction was confirmed in his favor. counsel for the respondent d.d.a. however submits that the d.d.a. is not obliged to grant any other plot to the petitioner since there is no privity in regard to the second plot, and under the rules the second plot cannot be allotted unless fresh auction is held. we do not find any substance in the submission in the face of acute shortage of land and high expectations of citizen to get land. the petitioner has a right to get a plot from the d.d.a. once the bid of the petitioner has been accepted. we direct the dda to give a plot to the petitioner of equivalent measurement at the same price in same area; and if it is not available in the same area; in the adjoining area within two months from today.

Full Judgment

(1) Plot No. 13 at Site No. 58 Kalkaji was auctioned and the petitioners's bid was accepted and auction was confirmed in his favor. The Delhi Development Authority however, is not able to hand over the plot to the petitioner because according to the D.D.A. the plot is in the green belt. It is for Dda to explain as to how a plot in the green belt was even initially put to auction, but in any case it was not a fault of the petitioner that he has successfully bid in the auction and the auction was confirmed in his favor. Counsel for the respondent D.D.A. however submits that the D.D.A. is not obliged to grant any other plot to the petitioner since there is no privity in regard to the second plot, and under the Rules the second plot cannot be allotted unless fresh auction is held. We do not find any substance in the submission in the face of acute shortage of land and high expectations of citizen to get land. The petitioner has a right to get a plot from the D.D.A. once the bid of the petitioner has been accepted. We direct the Dda to give a plot to the petitioner of equivalent measurement at the same price in same area; and if it is not available in the same area; in the adjoining area within two months from today.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1991 Same Parties Ravindra Mohan Aggarwal vs Delhi Development Authority Same Subject Property Same Judge S.B. Wad and; Shamim, JJ.

Property