3 decades after registration, HC asks DDA to allot plot to man

Nearly three decades after a man applied for a residential plot here, the Delhi High Court has directed DDA to allot him the land within a month but at the cost prevailing in 2011.
Allowing the plea of Prashant Kumar Verma, Justice Reva Khetrapal in a recent judgement said, "DDA is directed to allot the petitioner (Verma) a plot in the LIG category at the cost prevailing in 2011 by issuing a demand-cum-allotment letter within one month from today, and on the petitioner (Verma) making the payment to hand over the possession of the plot to him within one month thereafter."

In his plea Verma said that he had applied for the plot under the Rohini Residential Scheme of DDA in 1981. At the time of submission of application, he was above 18 years and studying but not working.
The DDA had cancelled his registration on the ground of non-eligibility as he was minor at the time of registration in April 1981 and had no source of income.
The court rejected DDA's argument that Verma's registration was cancelled in 1987 after he had failed to submit an affidavit/undertaking as required in the brochure and also the income proof for 1980-81 for the assessment year 1981-82.

The court accepted the argument of Verma's counsel R K Saini that his client did not receive any of the letters issued by DDA as his residential address got changed and Verma had informed the land owning agency about it in 1997.

The lawyer had argued saying "The cancellation of the registration of the petitioner (Verma) was done without any notice to show cause being served upon the petitioner and/or opportunity of being heard to him. Again, the allotment of the plot was cancelled without any notice to show cause and/or opportunity of being heard to the petitioner."
Claiming that through a RTI application Verma got the information in 2011, the counsel said in 2004 DDA had allotted Verma a LIG plot No 185, Blk-C, Pkt-1, Sector-27, Rohini, but his client was not informed about it despite the fact that permanent address of his client remained the same.

The DDA, however, argued Verma's name was inadvertently included in the computerised draw held on March 26, 2004.
The court further rejected DDA's argument for dismissal of the plea on grounds of delay.