AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
TEJAS KARIA, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 48197/2026 (Exemption)
Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The Application stands disposed of.
CM No. 48196/2026 (Delay)
Having regard to the averments made in the Application, the prayer made therein is allowed and the delay of 52 days in filing the present Appeal is condoned.
The Application stands disposed of.
LPA 574/2026 & CM No. 48195/2026
The present Appeal is directed against the order dated 16.03.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12221/2024 (“Writ Petition”), whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent, setting aside the cancellation letter dated 07.11.2022 (“Cancellation Letter”) issued by the Appellant. The learned Single Judge vide the Impugned Order directed the Appellant to make an allotment of a plot equivalent to the one allotted on 28.10.2016 under the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 (“1981 Scheme”) within two weeks, at the rate applicable on the date of filing of the Writ Petition.
The brief factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Appeal is as under:
On 27.03.1981, Late Sh. Shiv Gopal Tiwari, husband of the Respondent, applied for allotment of an Economically Weaker Section (EWS) / Janta category plot under the 1981 Scheme and deposited an earnest money amount of ₹750/-.
On 30.05.2007, Sh. Shiv Gopal Tiwari passed away. Upon his demise, the Respondent submitted the requisite documents along with his death certificate to the Appellant, pursuant to which the registration under the 1981 Scheme was duly mutated in the name of the Respondent.
Thereafter, the Appellant issued a show cause notice dated 07.06.2012 (“Show Cause Notice”) to the Respondent, stating that upon scrutiny of her application under the 1981 Scheme, it was observed that the Respondent was also registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (“1979 Scheme”). The Show Cause Notice further called upon the Respondent to clarify, within 15 days, whether any allotment of a flat had been made under the 1979 Scheme, failing which the Respondent’s registration under the 1981 Scheme would be treated as ceased. It was further stated that, in the event no allotment had been made under any scheme of the Appellant, the Respondent’s name would be considered in a subsequent draw of lots.
The Respondent submitted multiple written replies to the Show Cause Notice, clarifying that neither the Respondent nor her late husband had ever been allotted any flat or plot under the 1979 Scheme or under any other scheme of the Appellant.
Subsequently, the Appellant issued an intimation letter dated 31.08.2016, informing the Respondent that a computerized draw of lots under the 1981 Scheme was scheduled to be held on 16.09.2016.
Accordingly, the computerized draw of lots was conducted, in which the Respondent was successful and was allotted Plot / Unit No. 5, Pocket C-1, measuring 26 Sq. Mtrs., Sector-38, Rohini, Delhi-110085, under the 1981 Scheme (“Subject Plot”).
In view of the aforesaid allotment, the Appellant issued a letter dated 31.01.2018 calling upon the Respondent to furnish documents for verification of genuineness. The Respondent submitted all documents so required, which were acknowledged by the Appellant vide receipt dated 08.03.2018.
On 07.11.2022, the Appellant issued the Cancellation Letter, cancelling the allotment of the Subject Plot on the ground that, in terms of Clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the 1981 Scheme (“Clause 4”), applicants under earlier housing schemes, including the 1979 Scheme, were required to formally transfer their registration to the 1981 Scheme. It was stated that, since the Respondent had not transferred her registration, she had violated Clause 4 of the 1981 Scheme.
Aggrieved by the Cancellation Letter, the Respondent preferred the Writ Petition before this Court, seeking quashing of the Cancellation Letter and a direction to the Appellant to hand over physical possession of the Subject Plot. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition observing that Clause 4 was optional in nature and not mandatory and directed the Appellant to allot an equivalent plot to the Respondent within two weeks at the rate prevailing on the date of filing of the Writ Petition.
Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.
It is the case of the Appellant that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that Clause 4 was optional in nature. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Clause 4 constituted an essential eligibility condition governing the transfer of registrations from earlier schemes of the Appellant to the 1981 Scheme. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that, when read as a whole, Clause 4 requires an applicant from an earlier scheme to pay the differential earnest money, surrender the earlier fixed deposit receipt / challan, and formally transfer the registration, upon which the rights under the earlier scheme stand extinguished.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant further contended that the rationale underlying Clause 4 is to create a distinct category and accord priority to applicants who formally transferred their registration and paid the differential amount. It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that, since the Respondent was assigned a priority number, formal compliance with Clause 4 must be treated as a mandatory prerequisite, and that non-compliance therewith rendered the allotment liable to cancellation.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and considered the material placed on record.
Clause 4 of the 1981 Scheme reads as under:
“4. TRANSFER FROM OTHER HOUSING SCHEMES:
Persons who are registered with the DDA under any of its Housing Registration Schemes or New Pattern Scheme 1979 are allowed to get their registration transferred to 'ROHINI'. They will form a separate block of registration and priority in the matter of allotment will be given to them. Those who desire to get their registration transferred from any of the earlier DDA Housing Schemes to Rohini Scheme will pay along with their application the difference between the amount already deposited and the earnest money payable for the Rohini Scheme. While submitting the application, they will be required to surrender the fixed deposit earlier receipt duly discharged and the copy of the challan form in respect of their deposit in that Housing Scheme. Interest on their fixed deposit in the Housing Scheme would be transferred to their new account and adjusted at the time of the final allotment of the plot. They will get interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount of interest as calculated upto 31.3.1981. On transfer, the applicant shall have no right to any allotment under the earlier Housing Scheme.”
A plain reading of Clause 4 demonstrates that the provision employs permissive language, particularly the expressions “allowed” and “desire”. Clause 4 was intended to enable applicants under earlier schemes, including the 1979 Scheme, to seek priority allotment under the 1981 Scheme by surrendering their original registration documents and depositing the differential earnest money. The said clause does not create an absolute bar or prescribe a mandatory disqualification for applicants who were registered under an earlier scheme but participated in a regular subsequent draw of lots without claiming priority. It is also material to note that the Respondent never received any priority allotment. The Show Cause Notice expressly stated that the Respondent’s name would be considered in a subsequent draw, and the Respondent’s name was accordingly considered only in a regular subsequent draw conducted in 2016.
The fundamental object of eligibility scrutiny in public housing schemes is to prevent double allotment. It is an admitted position that neither the Respondent nor her late husband was ever allotted any plot or flat under the 1979 Scheme or under any other scheme of the Appellant. The Respondent reiterated this position in response to the Show Cause Notice. Consequently, the Respondent did not seek or obtain any double benefit, nor was any prejudice caused to the public exchequer or to any third party.
The Show Cause Notice issued to the Respondent sought clarification strictly with respect to whether any allotment had been made under the 1979 Scheme, and expressly assured the Respondent that, in the event no allotment had been made, her name would be considered in a subsequent draw of lots. Non-compliance with Clause 4 was never raised as a defect or as a ground for cessation of registration in the Show Cause Notice until issuance of the Cancellation Letter.
Despite the Appellant being fully aware of the terms of the 1981 Scheme, the Appellant issued the Show Cause Notice in 2012 and thereafter issued the intimation letter regarding the computerized draw, conducted the draw and allotted the Subject Plot in 2016. Subsequently, the Appellant also conducted document verification in 2018, without raising the issue of non-compliance with Clause 4.
The learned Single Judge rightly observed that the invocation of Clause 4 for the first time in the Cancellation Letter, more than a decade after the Show Cause Notice and six years after the draw of lots, was a clear afterthought. Having taken affirmative steps towards allotment over a period of ten years without raising any procedural objection under Clause 4, the Appellant waived its right to cancel the allotment of the Subject Plot on that ground.
In view of the foregoing, we do not find any infirmity in the Impugned Order warranting interference. Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.