Dismissed¶29

Ramesh v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC9 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/13213/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 13213/2019, Ramesh v. Delhi Development Authority, Jasmeet Singh J, 09.03.2026 - DDA shop allotment under SC/ST category scheme at CSC No. 7, Sector-16, Rohini; carpet area versus plinth area with proportionate common portions; allotment letter dated 12.04.2019; total premium Rs. 18,91,983/- with Rs. 4,71,040/- payable in 60 days and balance in 24 EMIs of Rs. 62,891/-; non-payment for almost 7 years; maintainability; Article 226; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In none of the documents of the respondent was it stated that the area of 10.080 sq. mtr. was the carpet area, as opposed to the combined area of plinth along with proportionate common portions. ¶26

Ramesh Vs Delhi Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a shop measuring 10.080 sq. mtr. of carpet area, or whether the allotted area of 10.080 sq. mtr. comprised the plinth area together with proportionate common portions. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

In none of the documents of the respondent was it stated that the area of 10.080 sq. mtr. was the carpet area, as opposed to the combined area of plinth along with proportionate common portions.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The respondent's stand that 10.080 sq. mtr. is not the carpet area but the total area of the shop, which included the plinth area and proportionate common portions, is in order; additionally, the brochure permitted all bidders to visit the site and see the property in question.

¶27

Key takeaways

The petitioner's claim that he is entitled to 10.080 sq. mtr. of carpet area is not sustainable.ratio¶28
Besides the application money of Rs. 2000/-, there is no document on record showing that the petitioner made any other payment.ratio¶29
In the absence of the petitioner making any payment for more than almost 7 years, the petitioner cannot maintain the present petition.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 dismissed (Jasmeet Singh, J.; order dated 09.03.2026). The petitioner, an SC-category applicant, was allotted Shop/Stall No. 4, CSC No. 7, Sector-16 Block-F, Rohini (SC/ST category) vide allotment letter dated 12.04.2019 describing the shop as measuring 10.080 sq. mtr.; on actual measurement he found it to be about half that area and sought allotment of 10.080 sq. mtr. of carpet area. DDA's counter affidavit explained that the costing of the shop was worked out as 10.080 sq. mtr. on the basis of plinth area including proportionate common portion/area (costing file No. F21(1388)92/HAC; Authority Resolution No. 53/2017; methodology approved by FM, DDA). Holding that no document of the respondent described 10.080 sq. mtr. as carpet area, that the respondent's stand was in order, and that the brochure permitted all bidders to visit and inspect the site, the Court held the carpet-area claim unsustainable. Further, since the petitioner had paid only the application money of Rs. 2000/- in almost 7 years, the Court held the petition not maintainable and dismissed it along with pending applications.

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 13213/2019 RAMESH .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Dilip Singh, Ms. Iffat Fatima, Ms. Maahi Singh, Advs.

¶5

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur (SC DDA), Ms. Antara Mishra, Adv.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 09.03.2026

¶8

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶9

“I. To call the original records of the respondent pertaining

¶10

to allotted shop to petitioner vide File No: F12(59)/2019/CE/123;

¶11

II. To Issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ order/ direction whereby directing the respondent to allot a shop of the size allotted vide allotment letter dated 12.04.2019 and in the same area/locality.;

¶12

III. To Issue appropriate writ/ order/ direction to the respondent conclude the process of allotment and handing over the possession in a period of six months;

¶13

IV. To direct the respondent to pay to the petitioner a cost of Rs. 50,000/- and a sum of Rs; 1 lac for harassment;...”

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to the SC category and he made an application bearing No. 8000420 on 11.01.2019 to

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 16/03/2026 at 16:39:50

¶17

the respondent for allotment of a shop in the SC/ST category scheme. Consequently, the petitioner was allotted a shop of 10.080 sq. mtr. and an allotment letter dated 12.04.2019 was also issued to the petitioner.

¶18

The shop allotted to the petitioner was mentioned in the subject line of the allotment letter as shop/stall No. 4 in Sector 16 Pocket Block F in CSC No. 7 Sector-16 Block-F, Rohini under the category SC/ST, measuring 10.080 sq. mtr. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 4,71,040.75/- and the remaining balance was scheduled to be paid in 24 equated monthly instalments with interest.

¶19

However, the petitioner on actual measurement of the allotted shop found that the shop was measuring about 6 metres only and the area was half of the allotted area i.e. 10.080 sq. mtr. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

¶20

Ms. Mishra, learned standing counsel for the respondent, has drawn my attention to the paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, which reads as under:

¶21

“That the Accounts Branch, DDA had worked out the costing of the aforesaid shop to be 10.080 Sq. mtr, as per available details in the relevant costing file No. F21(1388)92/HAC, on the basis of plinth area including proportionate common portion/area for Shop No. 4, CSC 7, Pocket F, Sector 16, Rohini, and the same has been calculated as per Authority Resolution No. 53/2017 and the methodology approved by FM, DDA.”

¶22

A perusal of the counter affidavit shows that the area of 10.080 sq. mtr. of the allotted shop was inclusive of the plinth area of the shop and

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 16/03/2026 at 16:39:50

¶25

proportionate common portions.

¶26

I am of the view that in none of the documents of the respondent, it has been stated that the area of 10.080 sq. mtr. was the carpet area and not the combined area of plinth along with proportionate common portions.

¶27

Accordingly, the stand of the respondent that 10.080 sq. mtr. is not the carpet area but the total area of the shop which included the plinth area and proportionate common portions is in order. Additionally, the brochure also permitted all the bidders to visit the site and see the property in question.

¶28

In this view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to 10.080 sq. mtr. of carpet area is not sustainable. 10. In the present case, the petitioner was required to make a total payment of premium of Rs. 18,91,983/-, i.e. Rs. 4,71,040/- within 60 days of the issue of allotment letter and the remaining amount in 24 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 62,891/- with interest.

¶29

Besides the application money of Rs. 2000/-, there is no document on record to show that the petitioner has made any other payment. 12. In the absence of the petitioner making any payment for more than almost 7 years, the petitioner cannot maintain the present petition. 13. For the said reasons, the petition is dismissed along with pending applications, if any.

¶30

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶31

MARCH 9, 2026/DM

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 16/03/2026 at 16:39:50

Ramesh v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kumar Tripathi & Ors. Vs Principal District and Sessions Judge Headquarters Tis Hazari District Courts Delhi

Sitaram Aggarwal Vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Nitin Sarna Vs Department of Transport

Vikas Mishra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Tejinder Pal Singh Bhinder Vs Chief Controller of Accounts & Ors.

M/S Anand Motors Vs Jai Prakash and Anr.

Sh. Naveen Kumar Gupta Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. New Delhi

Sh. Mukul Agarwal Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. New Delhi

Vikramaditya Singh & Ors. Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Adarsh College of Elementary Teacher Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Vivek Degree Teacher Training College Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Iqbal Kaur Vs Delhi Development Authority

Alfisha Arif & Ors. Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Murlidhar & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority