LexDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus JITENDER PAL BHARDWAJ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 135 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A v. JITENDER PAL BHARDWAJ (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27181 of 2009) OCTOBER 9, 2009 B [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] Urban Development: 1 Housing - Allotment of plot to person already in c possession of a flat - Allotment of plots by Delhi Development Authority under Rohini Scheme - Allotment to allottee cancelled on the ground that on the date of allotment he already owned a flat in Delhi - Stand of allottee that the flat owned by him being less than 65 sq. mtr., he did not violate clause 1 (ii) of the Terms and Conditions of the Rohini D Scheme and thus was entitled to the allotment - HELD: Though intention of Development Authorities is to allot plots to houseless, the policy and the scheme has to be given effect to with reference to the specific wor(iing of the eligibility E provision - If ODA wanted to bar everyone owning a pl<!Jtl - house/flat from securing an allotment, it could have made 'its intention clear - But DOA chose to make the eligibility clause subject to an exemption - Such exemption has to be given effect to - When the term of exemption is specific and F unambiguous, it is not possible to restrict its applicability or read into it, a meaning other than the plain and normal meaning, on the assumption that the general object of the Scheme was different from what is spelt out in the term - Order - of single Judge of High Court quashing cancellation of allotment holding that there was no violation or breach on the G part of allottee, as affirmed by Division Bench of the High .. Court, upheld . .....;.:. / 135 H 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27181 of 2009. ,- From the Judgment & Order dated 5.5.2009 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 178 of 2009. B Amarendra Sharan, Vishnu B. Saharya (for Saharya & Co.) for the Petitioners. ~ The following Order of the Court was delivered t ORDER ~ c 1. Delay condoned. 2. More than 28 years ago, on 23.3.1981, the respondent made an application to the Delhi Development Authority C DOA' for short) for allotment of a plot under the Rohini Scheme. The D eligibility requirement prescribed in clause 1 (ii) of the Terms and Conditions of the Scheme is extracted below: "The individu~: Oi his wife/her husband or any of his/her minor children do not own in full or in part on lease-hold or freehold basis any residential plot of land or a house or E have not been allotted on hire-purchase basis a residential flat in Delhi/New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment. If, however, individual share of the applicant in the jointly owned plot or land under the residential house is less than 65 sq.m, an application for allotment of plot can be entertained. F Persons who own a house or a plot allotted by the Delhi Development Authority on an area of even less than 65 sq.m, shall not, however, be eligible for allotment." When he made the application in 1981, neither the respondent nor any of his family members owned any land or plot or flat in ~ G Delhi and gave declaration to that effect. 3. Nearly, a quarter century later, in a computerized draw, ~ respondent was allotted plot No.158, Block/PKT-C2, Sector- " 28, Rohini, measuring 60 sq.m, vide letter of allotment dated .H 3/7.10.2005. As required by DOA in its communication dated -t \ - ~ -II. ... DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. JITENDER 137 PAL BHARDWAJ 11.3.2006, the respondent submitted necessary documents and affidavits under cover of his letter dated 31.3.2006 wherein he disclosed, in pursuance of the above eligibility condition, that he had acquired a flat measuring less than 65 sq.m in United India Apartments (Flat NO. 151/A), MayurVihar Phase-I, Delhi. He also deposited the entire premium in regard to the allotted plot. 4. After issuing a show cause notice dated 28.2.2007, DOA by communication dated 28.5.2007, cancelled the allotment on the ground that the respondent was already the owner of a flat. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the High Court. He submitted that when he made the application for allotment, he did not have any land, plot or flat. He further submitted that in the year 1994, he had acquired a flat measuring 62.22 sq.m which was less than 65 sq.m and therefore his eligibility for allotment of a plot by DOA, was not affected. He also
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.