Smt. Kamlesh Devi Vs D. D. a. and Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Kamlesh Devi Vs D. D. a. and Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of as not pressed at petitioner's instance; liberty granted to file a fresh representation before the Chairman, DDA for regularizing the allotment, to be filed within four weeks and considered in accordance with law

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's cancelled allotment of a shop (applied for on out-of-turn basis after her husband's death) could be regularized, including upon payment, as sought through a fresh representation to the Chairman, DDA

Court's answer

In view of learned Senior Counsel's on-instructions statement that petitioner was not pressing the writ petition, the Court disposed of the present writ petition as not pressed and granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the Chairman, DDA for regularizing the allotment; such representation to be filed within four weeks and to be considered in accordance with law. No substantive adjudication of the merits of the regularization claim was made.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain), Order dated 04.03.2025, W.P.(C) 11384/2017 — Smt. Kamlesh Devi v. D. D. A. AND ANR.: Petitioner, widow of a DDA employee, had applied for allotment of a shop on out-of-turn basis after her husband's death; as she could not raise requisite funds to make the entire payment under the demand letter, her allotment was cancelled, though a sum of Rs. 3,05,160/- deposited by demand draft on 23.11.2015 remained lying with DDA. Counsel submitted petitioner was willing to pay the current market rate and that the shop had not been allotted to anyone else. On Senior Counsel's on-instructions statement that petitioner did not wish to press the petition, the Court disposed of the writ petition as not pressed, granting liberty to file a fresh representation before the Chairman, DDA seeking regularization of the allotment; the representation was to be filed within four weeks and considered in accordance with law. Respondent/DDA contended the petition lacked substance or merit and characterized the withdrawal as a ploy to avoid dismissal. No statute or specific precedent was cited in the order; the merits of the claim were left unadjudicated.

$~5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 11384/2017

SMT. KAMLESH DEVI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kavindra Solanki, Mr. Nimish Kumar and Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocates

versus

D. D. A. AND ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari and Mr. Pawan Karan Deo, Advocates for DDA

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

O R D E R

% 04.03.2025

After hearing arguments for some time, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, on instructions, submits that petitioner does not press the present writ petition and seeks liberty to file representation afresh before the Chairman, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for regularizing the allotment in question.

Petitioner is widow of an employee of DDA.

After the unfortunate death of her husband, she applied for allotment of a shop on out-of-turn basis . It is submitted that for the reason, she could not raise requisite funds for making the entire payment as per the demand letter, her allotment was cancelled. It is submitted that petitioner had, earlier, deposited a sum of Rs. 3,05,160/- on 23.11.2015 (by way of demand draft) which is still lying with DDA. Mr. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for

W.P.(C) 11384/2017 1

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:03:20

petitioner submits that petitioner is even ready to make payment as per current market rate. He also submits that the shop in question has not yet been allotted to anyone else and, therefore, in the abovesaid peculiar facts and also considering the fact that it was a compassionate allotment, petitioner, at the moment, is not desirous of pressing the present writ petition with liberty, as aforesaid.

It is also submitted that while making such representation, the petitioner would also make reference to some precedents where despite there being huge delay, the allotment has been regularized.

Learned counsel for respondent/DDA contends that the petition lacks any substance or merit. He also submits that such request should have been rather made at the time when the petition was filed and this is only a ploy to avoid the possible dismissal of the present writ petition.

Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid statement made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of as not pressed and, simultaneously, liberty, as prayed, is granted. Let representation, if any, be filed within four weeks from today. Let any such representation be considered in accordance with law.

Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

MANOJ JAIN, J

MARCH 4, 2025/ dr/js

W.P.(C) 11384/2017 2

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:03:20