Allowed

Sushil Kumar Jain v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC9 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/233/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking removal of illegal restrictions on selling property was disposed of. The High Court Held that the residential apartment may not be attributed to the party at present and allowed the inventory. MP and MP Shri Shobhadev Sawant raised certain queries related to the same. The matter was disposed of with directions.

What did the court decide?

The condition in the conveyance deed restraining sale for five years is held inapplicable.

Sushil Kumar Jain Vs Delhi Development Authority — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 233/2024

¶4

SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Chand Chopra and Mr. Punishk Handa, Advs. for DDA.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 09.07.2025

¶12

CM APPL. 24415/2025 (by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking early hearing of petition)

¶13

The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking preponement of date of hearing.

¶14

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

¶15

The application stands disposed of.

¶16

W.P.(C) 233/2024

¶17

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing today itself.

¶18

The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside/removal of illegal noting/condition restraining petitioner from selling the property bearing no.284, Pocket-6, Sector-23, Rohini, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘property’].

¶19

Mr. Puneet Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invites attention of the Court to order dated 25.03.2025, to

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 17/07/2025 at 12:52:53

¶22

contend that on the said date a submission was made by him to the effect that the case of petitioner is covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dev Raj v. Delhi Development Authority [W.P.(C) 1814/2021].

¶23

Ms. Chand Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/DDA had sought time to seek instructions in that behalf. 8. Ms. Chopra submits that she has instructions to state that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision in Dev Raj (supra) and submits that directions passed in the said decision may also be passed in the present petition. The operative part of Dev Raj (supra) reads as under:-

¶24

“7. A perusal of the circular dated 13.09.2013, issued by the DDA, indicates that the circular had been issued because of several cases which have been brought to the notice of CBI, where persons had sought restoration of their allotment after a long period of time and the restoration was for dubious reasons. Paragraph number 1 of the said circular states that it was issued to verify the genuineness of the facts before the revival of the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter. 8. The said circular cannot be applied to the present case. In the instant case, the original allotment was made to the Petitioner and there is no doubt that the Petitioner was the original allottee. The Division Bench has categorically noted that the DDA erred by not issuing a letter to the permanent address of the Petitioner and allowed the Petitioner’s writ petition directing the allotment of the flat to the Petitioner. The present case is not one of revival of the allotment letter but a case where the Court has struck down the cancellation of the plot and restored the allotment. The said policy, therefore, cannot be made applicable to the Petitioner.

¶25

9. Had the Petitioner not come to the Court and the DDA had revived the allotment without any interference of the Court, then this circular may have applied. However, in view of the fact that this Court has restored the allotment of the flat, and the allotment has been given only to the original allottee from the original date, i.e. in the year 2003 or at least from 19.02.2014, this circular

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 17/07/2025 at 12:52:53

¶28

cannot be said to be made applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶29

10. The condition stipulated in the conveyance deed restraining the Petitioner from selling the flat by way of executing a sale deed/ agreement to sell for a period of five years from the restoration of allotment cannot be made applicable in the instant case.”

¶30

In view of the above, it is directed that the condition stipulated in the conveyance deed dated 27.09.2023, thereby restraining the petitioner from selling the said property by way of executing a sale deed/agreement to sell for a period of five years from the actual date of possession is not applicable to the instant case.

¶31

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶32

The next date already fixed in the petition i.e. 18.09.2025 stands cancelled.

¶33

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶34

JULY 9, 2025/ aj

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 17/07/2025 at 12:52:53

Sushil Kumar Jain v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Jain v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shlok Sachin Vs Union of India & Ors.

Natural Support Consultancy Services Private Limited Vs Union of India through Ministry of Finance & Ors.

C.S.I.R. Vs Srideba Nanda & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Cdr Sudesh Kumar Sharma Retd

Parvesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Pfizer Limited through Constituted Attorney Mr Samir Kazi Vs Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi & Ors.

Davinder Pal Singh Vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee & Ors.

Cdr Yogesh Mahla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ankit Tayal & Anr. Vs Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.

Ashish Patel Vs Go Digit General Insurance Limited Though Manager and Others

Rajesh Gupta Vs Canara Bank & Anr.

MD Aram Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Jeetu Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Dhani Ram Vs Delhi Development Authority