Sohan Pal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Sohan Pal vs Delhi Development Authority

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 17, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/704501

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/704501
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: C.K. Mahajan, J.
Decided On: Sep 17, 1999
Case Number: C.W. No. 6365 of 1998
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

In the instant case, it was found that the flat allotted to the petitioner had already been allotted to some other person - In this view, a representation was made by the petitioner requesting the authority to allot an alternative flat at the same cost, zone, area and floor - It was found that as per the policy of t...

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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sohan Pal

Advocate Mr. N. Kinra, Adv

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority

Advocate Mr. Deepak Khadaria, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 2000IIAD(Delhi)352; 83(2000)DLT558

Excerpt

in the instant case, it was found that the flat allotted to the petitioner had already been allotted to some other person - in this view, a representation was made by the petitioner requesting the authority to allot an alternative flat at the same cost, zone, area and floor - it was found that as per the policy of the respondent the petitioner was entitled to get the alternative flat as claimed - in support to this, an interim order was passed by the court which stood vacated since in the meantime, the alternative flat was allotted to the petitioner - hence, the court directed the respondent to hand over the physical possession of the flat within four week as per article 226 of the constitution of india - .....placed reliance on a division bench judgment of this court in dutt raj gupta v. d.d.a. cw. 587/95 decided on 31.1.1997. 4.an interim order was passed by this court on 10th december, 1998 directing the respondents to reserve flat no. 24-gf, bhat nagar, janta flat, delhi for the petitioner. 5.on 6th april, 1999 the learned counsel for the respondent/dda conceded that this is a case of double allotment and stated that petitioner's case will be considered as per the policy of the respondents for the allotment of alternative flat. 6.today a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent that flat no. 113-b, sector-d, pocket ii, kondli gharoli, delhi has been allotted to the petitioner at the same costs at which the earlier flat was allotted to him vide letter dated 1/6th march, 1995. demand-cumallotment be issued to the petitioner within two weeks. the respondent is directed to hand over the physical possession of the above-flat on completion of usual formalities within four weeks. 7.the interim order dated 10th december, 1998 directing the respondent to reserve flat no. 24-gf, bhat nagar, janta flat, delhi stands vacated. 8.the petition is accordingly disposed of. 9.no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

C.K. Mahajan, J.

1. The petitioner was registered for allotment of a Flat of Janta Category with the respondent/DDA in the year 1989 under Special Housing Registration Scheme for SC/ST persons. Draw of lots was held in 1994 and the petitioner was allotted a Janta flat on hire purchase basis, Bearing No. 37-A, Sector-D, Pocket II, Group II, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi at a disposal cost of Rs. 1,11,700/- with initial deposit of Rs. 52,100/-. The allotment-cumdemand letter was issued to the petitioner on 1st/6th March, 1995.

2.It appears that when the petitioner visited the site he came to know that the flat allotted to him had already been allotted to one Kartar Singh and physical possession of the flat had already been taken. The petitioner visited the office of the respondents and made a representation on 5th April, 1995 requesting them to allot a flat in lieu of the flat allotted to him vide letter dated 1/6.3.1995. Thereafter, he met Deputy Director (Housing), Director (Housing) and made another representation on 10th January, 1997. Thereafter he met Minister for Housing and made one more representation on 6.10.1998 for allotment of an alternative flat. Failing to invoke any response the petitioner filed the present petition.

3.It is stated in the petition that as per the policy of the respondent/DDA issued vide Resolution No. 144/93 the petitioner is entitled to an alternative flat at the same cost, same zone, same area and same floor. The petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Dutt Raj Gupta v. D.D.A. CW. 587/95 decided on 31.1.1997.

4.An interim order was passed by this Court on 10th December, 1998 directing the respondents to reserve Flat No. 24-GF, Bhat Nagar, Janta Flat, Delhi for the petitioner.

5.On 6th April, 1999 the learned Counsel for the respondent/DDA conceded that this is a case of double allotment and stated that petitioner's case will be considered as per the policy of the respondents for the allotment of alternative flat.

6.Today a statement has been made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that Flat No. 113-B, Sector-D, Pocket II, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi has been allotted to the petitioner at the same costs at which the earlier flat was allotted to him vide letter dated 1/6th March, 1995. Demand-cumallotment be issued to the petitioner within two weeks. The respondent is directed to hand over the physical possession of the above-flat on completion of usual formalities within four weeks.

7.The interim order dated 10th December, 1998 directing the respondent to reserve Flat No. 24-GF, Bhat Nagar, Janta Flat, Delhi stands vacated.

8.The petition is accordingly disposed of.

9.No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1999 Same Parties Sohan Pal vs Delhi Development Authority Same Subject Property Same Judge C.K. Mahajan, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226

Property