Shri Ram Katula Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 10^th July, 2026 Uploaded on: 13^th July, 2026

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9124/2026 and CM APPL. 42783/2026, CM APPL. 42784/2026, CM APPL. 42785/2026

¶4

SHRI RAM KATULA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Abhijat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Harshit Jain, and Mr. Harsh and Mr. Arjun Drall, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing Counsel with Mr. Bir Inder Singh Gurm and Mr. Kamlendu Pandey, Advs. for DDA.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶9

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶10

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner, inter alia , seeking directions to the Respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the arbitral award dated 18th June, 2014 in Arbitration Case No. 225/2009/DCT (hereinafter, ‘the arbitral award’) .

¶12

A brief background of the present case is that an arbitral award was passed on 18th June, 2014, wherein the ld. Arbitrator had held that the claimant i.e., the Petitioner’s father was a valid member of Rajdhani Housing Society Rajdhani Enclave, Pitam Pura (hereinafter, ‘the Society’) .

¶13

The arbitral award also held that Smt. Ranjana Kapoor was not a valid

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 3.07.2026 18:39:19

¶15

W.P.(C) 9124/2026

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

member of the Society. The operative portion of the said award reads as under:-

¶18

“[...]

¶19

1. The claimant is declared as a valid member of the society and entitled to allotment of plot No. 247 in the respondent society against membership no.19.

¶20

2. The Respondent No. 2 is not a valid member of society as she was never enrolled as member of the respondent society.

¶21

3. The society is further directed to get the sub lease deed executed in the name of the claimant through his legal heirs within a period three months.

¶22

4. There is no order as to costs.”

¶23

Thereafter, the arbitral award was challenged before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal by Smt. Ranjana Kapoor. Vide judgment dated 19^th February, 2019, in Appeal No. 140/2014/DCT , the arbitral award was upheld. The relevant portion of the said judgement is set out below:

¶24

“ [...] 19. The impugned award is well reasoned and has been passed by considering the pleadings, documentary evidence as per provisions of DCS Act & Rules. The contention that the impugned award is based on conjectures and surmises or passed in illegal, arbitrary, in erroneous way and without application of mind are not tenable.

¶25

20. In our considered view, there is no merit in the objections raised on behalf of appellant. The impugned award does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or impropriety.The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed”

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

W.P.(C) 9124/2026

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 3.07.2026 18:39:19

¶30

Pursuant thereto, the judgement dated 19th February, 2019 of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal was challenged by Smt. Ranjana Kapoor before a Division Bench of this Court.

¶31

Ld. Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 7300/2019 and Writ Petition (Civil) 1054/2020 had, vide order dated 1^st August, 2025 dismissed the said writ petitions and had thus, upheld the arbitral award.

¶32

In addition, a review petition being Review Petition 504/2025 was also filed by Smt. Ranjana Kapoor, which was also dismissed by the ld. Division Bench vide order dated 25th September, 2025.

¶33

The matter finally reached the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 214/2026, wherein vide order dated 27^th February, 2026, the Supreme Court had also dismissed the SLP. The said order dated 27th February, 2026 is set out below:

¶34

“[...]

¶35

1. Delay in filing and refiling is condoned.

¶36

2. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, we do not find any good ground to entertain these petitions. Hence, Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed. It is made clear that if petitioner has any claim against the society, she may raise such claim in accordance with law with all just

¶37

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall^tand disposed of.”

¶38

In effect, therefore, the arbitral award has attained finality and is to be given effect to. Thus, the Petitioner herein, who is the son of the original

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

W.P.(C) 9124/2026

¶41

Page 3 of 6

¶42

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 3.07.2026 18:39:19

¶43

claimant is entitled to be allotted Plot No. 247 in the Society.

¶44

The Society had also passed a resolution on 9^th December, 2015, wherein it was decided that the membership of late Mr. Mani Ram be transferred to Shri Ram, the Petitioner herein, in terms of the arbitral award. The relevant portion of the said resolution dated 22^nd August, 2015 passed by the Society is set out below:

¶45

Consequently, after the Award attained finality, the Petitioner approached the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘DDA’) vide a

¶46

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 3.07.2026 18:39:19

¶47

W.P.(C) 9124/2026

¶48

Page 4 of 6

¶49

communication dated 25th March, 2026 for execution of the lease deed in relation to Plot No. 247 in terms of the arbitral award.

¶50

Pursuant thereto, the DDA wrote to the RCS on 13^th May, 2026 for clearance of the membership of Petitioner in order to make the allotment. In view of the fact that till date the allotment has not been made in favour of the Petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. Ld. Counsel submits that there is no reason to delay the allotment.

¶51

To cut short the entire controversy, it is clear that the Petitioner’s right to obtain allotment is no longer under challenge. The Society has already confirmed the same vide its resolution on 22^nd August, 2015.

¶52

Today, the RCS has also handed over a letter dated 19^th June, 2026 seeking clearance of the membership of the Petitioner from the Society. Clearly in view of the resolution dated 28^th February, 2015, the Petitioner’s entitlement is not in question. 16. On behalf of DDA ld. Counsel submits that if the RCS sends the recommendation, the DDA would make the allotment expeditiously. 17. Under these circumstances, the following directions are issued:-

¶53

i) The Petitioner, along with an office bearer of the Society shall appear before the RCS on 20th July, 2026 at 10:30 AM . On the said date, any records which are available with the Petitioner or with the Society in respect of the membership may be produced;

¶54

ii) After perusing the records, the RCS shall, by 30^th July, 2026, issue recommendation to the DDA for allotment and execution of the lease deed in favour of the Petitioner. The DDA shall then issue the allotment letter by 14^th August, 2026 . The lease deed be executed by the DDA thereafter, in accordance with law, upon the Petitioner

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

W.P.(C) 9124/2026

¶57

Page 5 of 6

¶58

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 3.07.2026 18:39:19

¶59

completing any necessary formalities.

¶60

iii) If the Petitioner wishes to apply for conversion of the plot from lease hold to free hold, he may do so in accordance with law.

¶61

In view of the above chronology of events, it is made clear that any document executed in favour of Smt. Ranjana Kapoor in respect of this plot would automatically stand cancelled with the final dismissal of SLP (Civil) Diary No. 214/2026. This order be communicated to the concerned SubRegistrar by ld. Counsel for the DDA.

¶62

The petition is disposed of in these terms, with all pending applications, if any.

¶63

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

¶64

VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE

¶65

JULY 10, 2026/MR/SS

¶66

Signature Not Verified

¶67

W.P.(C) 9124/2026

¶68

Page 6 of 6

¶69

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 3.07.2026 18:39:19

Shri Ram Katula v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ram Katula v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murari Lal & Ors. Vs Punjab Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr.

Bhagwan Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Smt. Deepika Bajaj Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ms. Devmala Sharma Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors.

White Rose Cghs Ltd. Vs Sh. Ghanshyam

Farhanex Tradex Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Desh Raj Vs the Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Amarjeet Singh Sethi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Bhagwan Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Smt. Deepika Bajaj Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Pankaj Gupta Vs Secretary Rashmi Apartments & Ors.

Gauri Shankar and Anr. Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Ors.

Dr. Divya Sharma Vs the Registrar (Delhi Co-Operative Societies) & Ors.

Gauri Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council