Smt Jai Devi vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
* in the high court of delhi at new delhi+ w.p.(c) 4692/2026 smt jai devi .....petitioner through: ms. rajeshwari adv. with ms. nupur a goswami, advversusdelhi development authority & anr. .....respondent through: ms. deeksha l. kakar mr. rashneet singh, advs. for r1 ms. shiva lakshmi (spc) mr. satyam shekhar adv for uoicoram:hon'ble mr. justice jasmeet singhorder% 09.04.2026 cm appl. 22950/2026 allowed subject to all just exceptions. the application stands disposed of. w.p.(c) 4692/20261. this is a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution ofindia seeking the following prayers:- “a. issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit, process, and complete the execution and registration of the conveyance deed in respect of property bearing no. a-16, lakhi ram park, kirari suleman nagar, north-west delhi - 110086 admeasuring 112 sq. yards/93.6 sq. meters in favour of the petitioner under the pm-uday scheme; b. direct the respondents to accept the existing documents already recognised at the time of issuance of the authorisation slip and tofacilitate registration before the concerned sub-registrar within a time-bound period to be fixed by this hon’ble court; c. declare that the right of the petitioner to obtain registered title pursuant to the authorisation slip already issued cannot be defeated by subsequent procedural requirements or administrative delay; d. award costs of the present petition in favour of the petitioner;…”2. it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to plot underthe pm-uday scheme and has already been declared entitled. additionally, the scheduled caste commission has recommended the case of the petitioner.3. ms. rajeshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner states that thepetitioner would be satisfied if the petition is treated as a representation and decided by the respondent no. 1 in accordance with their extant rules.4. with consent of parties, it is directed that the present petition will betreated as a representation by the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 1 will accord a personal hearing to the petitioner / his representative.5. after hearing the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 shall pass a speakingorder expeditiously and not later than 3 months from today.6. the petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.jasmeet singh, j april 9, 2026 / (ms)

Judgment:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4692/2026 SMT JAI DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rajeshwari Adv. with Ms. Nupur A Goswami, Adv

versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Deeksha L. Kakar Mr. Rashneet Singh, Advs. for R1 Ms. Shiva Lakshmi (SPC) Mr. Satyam Shekhar Adv for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

ORDER

% 09.04.2026 CM APPL. 22950/2026 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 4692/2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following prayers:- “a. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to permit, process, and complete the execution and registration of the Conveyance Deed in respect of property bearing No. A-16, Lakhi Ram Park, Kirari Suleman Nagar, North-West Delhi - 110086 admeasuring 112 sq. yards/93.6 sq. meters in favour of the Petitioner under the PM-UDAY Scheme; b. Direct the Respondents to accept the existing documents already recognised at the time of issuance of the Authorisation Slip and to

facilitate registration before the concerned Sub-Registrar within a time-bound period to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court; c. Declare that the right of the Petitioner to obtain registered title pursuant to the Authorisation Slip already issued cannot be defeated by subsequent procedural requirements or administrative delay; d. Award costs of the present petition in favour of the Petitioner;…”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to plot under

the PM-Uday Scheme and has already been declared entitled. Additionally, the Scheduled Caste Commission has recommended the case of the petitioner.

3. Ms. Rajeshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

petitioner would be satisfied if the petition is treated as a representation and decided by the respondent No. 1 in accordance with their extant rules.

4. With consent of parties, it is directed that the present petition will be

treated as a representation by the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 will accord a personal hearing to the petitioner / his representative.

5. After hearing the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 shall pass a speaking

order expeditiously and not later than 3 months from today.

6. The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

JASMEET SINGH, J APRIL 9, 2026 / (MS)