Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Satish Kumar on 14 July, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 22.05.2026
Judgment delivered on: 14.07.2026
Judgment uploaded on: As per Digital Signature~
+ LPA 78/2021
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Appellant
versus
SATISH KUMAR .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellant : Mr. Anish Dhingra, Mr. Arihant Nowlkha
and Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. R K Saini, Ms. Ujala Vishnoi, Mr.
Randeep Singh, Mr. Nitin Kumar and Mr.
Abhishek, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
CM APPL. 7426/2021 (Condonation of delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 380 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
LPA 78/2021 & CM APPL. 7425/2021 (Stay)
3. This intra-court appeal lays a challenge to the judgment dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 1 of 28
15:08:48
30.01.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.6113/2018,
whereby the writ petition was allowed by quashing the letter dated
23.03.2015 issued by the Appellant herein i.e. the Delhi Development
Authority, to the extent that it reduced the size of the plot allotted to the
Respondent from 250 sq. yards to 40 sq. yards and further directed the
Appellant to allot an alternative plot admeasuring 250 sq. yards, in terms of
the Residential Scheme of Alternative Allotment, 1961 (“scheme/policy”
hereinafter). The Respondent is the grandson of deceased Hari Ram whose
land was acquired by the Appellant.
BACKGROUND OF THE LIS
4. At the outset, we find it apposite to narrate the facts as borne out of
the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. On 13.11.1959, the
Delhi Administration, Land and Building Department (Delhi
Administration) issued a notification for large scale land acquisition. This
was followed by another notification dated 19.01.1964. These notifications
triggered large scale land acquisition whereby a parcel of land which was
co-owned by the Appellant’s grandfather, dece/ased Hari Ram was acquired.
This action of the Delhi Administration was not challenged by him. An
award dated 23.03.1965 was rendered whereby he was paid a compensation
of Rs.5,066.25/- qua the land admeasuring 1 bigha, 15 biswas under the
Scheme. This land was located in Khasra No.8, in Village Chirag Delhi,
New Delhi.
5. On 30.11.1983, the Delhi Administration wrote to the Appellant
recommending allotment of an alternate plot admeasuring 250 sq. yards, in
South Zone, in favour of the Appellant’s grandfather under the Scheme. OnSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 2 of 28
15:08:48
01.08.1984, the Delhi Administration addressed another letter to the
Appellant confirming this recommendation. Hari Ram passed away on
19.02.1986 and on the next day, i.e. 20.02.1986, the Appellant revised the
policy qua allotment of alternate plots. In respect of the pending applications
wherein the plot size does not exceed 1000 sq. yards, the size of the alternate
plot which the Appellant would recommend for allotment stood reduced to
40 sq. yards. All such applicants were to be allotted plots under the Rohini
Residential Scheme.
6. Subsequently, the deceased Hari Ram’s wife, Smt. Bhagwan Devi
deposited Rs.3,000/- towards earnest money with the Appellant on
13.06.1986. His son – Ved Prakash also deposited Rs. 3,000/- towards
earnest money with the Appellant on the same day. However, Ved Prakash,
(the son of the deceased Hari Ram) wrote to the Appellant vide letter dated
25.08.1986 that his mother had no right in the land and his right in the land
should be safeguarded. The Appellant replied vide letter dated 10.02.1987
that the dispute among the family members should be resolved before the
Court, for proper allotment of an alternative plot.
7. Thereafter, on 03.04.1989, the Appellant sent a letter addressed to the
deceased Hari Ram while adverting to the letter dated 30.11.1983,
conveying that he had been offered a land admeasuring 31.69 sq. mtrs. under
the Rohini Residential Scheme. The letter conveyed that Rs.3,000/- should
be paid as earnest money on or before 20.04.1989. It was also mentioned
that the allotment would be done via draw of lots, along with other
conditions etc. According to the Appellant, the earnest money was
deposited. A plot admeasuring 31.69 sq. mtrs. was allotted – Plot No.86,Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 3 of 28
15:08:48
Pocket G-4, Sector 11, in a draw of lots held on 27.03.1991.
8. The Appellant vide letter dated 23.01.1996 informed Smt. Bhagwan
Devi that the offer of allotment stood withdrawn due to failure of payment
of the demanded amount within the stipulated time.
9. This was followed by another letter by the Appellant dated
02.02.1996 – whereby, Smt. Bhagwan Devi was called upon to submit
certain documents, which, inter alia, included an affidavit giving details of
the legal heirs of the deceased Hari Ram. She was also advised to apply for
substitution of name in the letter dated 30.11.1983.
10. In 2015, the Appellant vide letter dated 03.02.2015, received a request
from Satish Kumar, i.e., the Respondent herein, the grandson of the
deceased Hari Ram to substitute his name in place of the deceased Hari Ram
in the recommendation letter dated 30.11.1983, on the basis of two
relinquishment deeds dated 12.11.2014 and 06.01.2015.
11. The Appellant complied with the request and incorporated the name
of the Respondent in place of the deceased Hari Ram and conveyed the same
to him by way of a communication dated 23.03.2015. The Respondent
challenged the reduction of the plot size from 250 sq. yards to 40 sq. yards
before the learned Single Judge.
12. It is the letter dated 23.03.2015, which the learned Single Judge has
quashed to the extent that it reduced the size of the plot allotted to the
Respondent from 250 sq. yards and directed the Appellant to allot an
alternative plot admeasuring 250 sq. yards, in terms of the Scheme.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 4 of 28
15:08:48
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
13. Mr. Anish Dhingra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
contended that vide letter dated 30.11.1983, the Delhi Administration had
recommended for allotment an alternative plot measuring 250 sq. yards in
South Zone to the grandfather of the Respondent under the Scheme in lieu of
his land measuring 890 sq. yards in Khasra Nos. 8 and 504 of Village Chirag
Delhi vide award no. 1802 dated 23.03.1965 as he had been found entitled to
the same.
14. On 01.08.1984, the Delhi Administration confirmed the allotment of
an alternative plot measuring 250 sq. yds. in South Zone to the grandfather
of the Respondent. In the meantime, the policy of Large Scale Acquisition
of Land in Delhi, 1961 was revised by the Under Secretary (ULCR) of the
Delhi Administration. The change in policy relevant for the present case is
reproduced as under:
“In respect of pending applications where land acquired is upto
1000 sq. yards, the plot size to be recommended to DDA shall be
reduced to 40 sq. yards. All such applications shall be given a plot
under the Rohini Residential Scheme irrespective of the area, where
all land acquired was allocated.”
15. He submitted that both Ved Prakash and Smt. Bhagwan Devi
deposited a sum of Rs. 3000/- each with the Appellant on 13.06.1986
towards earnest money. However, only one of them i.e. Smt. Bhagwan Devi
informed the Appellant that Hari Ram passed away on 19.02.1986. Further,
vide letter dated 25.08.1986, Ved Prakash conveyed to the Appellant that
Smt. Bhagwan Devi had no right to allotment of the plot.
16. It is his submission that by letter dated 03.04.1989, the Appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 5 of 28
15:08:48
issued an offer for allotment of an alternate plot under the Scheme, to the
legal heirs of the deceased Hari Ram mentioning that the legal heirs of the
deceased are entitled to the allotment of an alternative plot of 40 sq. yards
since the plot acquired was 890 sq. yards. It was also mentioned in the said
letter that the allotment is made under the revised policy of Delhi
Administration that where land acquired is upto 1000 sq. yards, a plot size of
40 sq. yards has to be allotted in Rohini irrespective of the area from where
the land was acquired. It was also informed that due to non-availability of
fully developed plots, a semi-developed plot measuring 31.69 sq. mtrs in
Rohini was offered. For this, the legal heirs were asked to deposit Rs.3,000/-
towards earnest money on or before 20.04.1989, if they were interested in
the allotment of the said plot.
17. He further submitted that the earnest money stood deposited in the
year 1986, and a plot bearing No. 86, Block G, Pocket 4, Sector 11, in the
Rohini Residential Scheme, admeasuring to 31.69 sq. mtrs. was allotted in
the name of the legal heirs of the deceased Hari Ram through draw of lots
held on 27.03.1991. Accordingly, a letter offering allotment was also issued
to the legal heirs of the deceased Hari Ram. However, since the legal heirs
failed to furnish the requisite documents for the substitution of their names
as legal heirs, despite repeated reminders, the Appellant did not issue the
allotment letter.
18. It is the Appellant’s case that though the legal representatives were
informed to comply with the necessary formalities, they took no action with
respect to the same. Consequently, the Appellant wrote to Smt. Bhagwan
Devi that the offer of allotment of the plot stood withdrawn / cancelled due
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 6 of 28
15:08:48
to her failure to pay the demanded amount within the stipulated time. She
was also advised to apply for substitution of the names of legal heirs for the
recommendation.
19. Pursuant to a letter dated 12.08.1992 received from Smt. Bhagwan
Devi for substitution of name in the recommendation letter, the Appellant
responded via letter dated 02.02.1996, asking her to furnish the list of
requisite documents within 30 days.
20. Mr. Dhingra stated that as per the record of the Appellant, Smt.
Bhagwan Devi passed away on 03.04.2007. Her four sons : Indersain
Bhardwaj; Narsi Bhagat; Krishan Kumar and Ved Prakash Bhardwaj also
passed away on 31.01.1991, 26.02.1991, 16.04.2004 and 01.09.2014
respectively. The surviving son – Om Prakash Bhardwaj and all the other
remaining legal heirs of the deceased Hari Ram relinquished their shares in
favour of the Respondent Satish Kumar, the son of Krishan Kumar. These
relinquishment deeds were dated 12.11.2014 and 06.01.2015.
21. Thereafter, the Respondent applied for mutation of his name in the
records of the Appellant. The Appellant informed him via letter dated
23.03.2015 that his name had been substituted in the place of his late
grandfather. It was also informed to him that in view of the letter no.
F.37(39)1/82-L&B/ Alt./ 370 dated 01.04.1987 received from Joint
Secretary, (Land & Building) in cases where the land acquired is upto 1000
sq. yds and awards have been announced upto 03.04.1986, a plot size of 40
sq. yards is to be allotted in Rohini Residential Scheme. The Respondent
challenged this letter in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge,
wherein the impugned order was passed in his favour.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 7 of 28
15:08:48
22. It is his case that the Appellant had contended before the learned
Single Judge that the Respondent is not entitled to a plot measuring 250 sq.
yards. He also challenged the impugned order on the ground of delay and
laches on part of the Respondent approaching the Court. The Respondent
did not appear before the concerned Court within a reasonable period of
time and should not be entitled to the relief sought. According to him, the
learned Single Judge has erroneously presumed that the delay by the
Respondent was on account of the disputes among the legal heirs of the
deceased, despite no document having been produced by the Respondent to
evidence this.
23. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon
the judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst.
Katji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 as the same is not applicable to the facts of
the present case. Additionally, the reliance placed by the learned Single
Judge upon the judgment of Adarsh Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
2006:DHC:18709-DB is erroneous, as in that case, a policy brought about in
the year 1989 was implemented and moreover, the DDA had already allotted
the plot in 1986. However, in the present case, there was no allotment of plot
until the draw of lots which took place on 27.03.1991 and prior to the said
draw of lots, the legal heirs of the deceased Hari Ram were already
intimated that as per the revised policy, they are only entitled to a plot size
of 40 sq. yds.
24. Another ground taken by him is that the Appellant had communicated
the change in the policy to the legal heirs of the Respondent in 1989. The
legal heirs never objected to the change in allotment of the alternate plot and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 8 of 28
15:08:48
this silence on their part should be deemed as acceptance of the plot
measuring 40 sq. yards. Additionally, the Respondent had never sought the
quashing of the letter dated 03.04.1989 or the policy of the Delhi
Administration. Hence, they could not have challenged letter dated
23.03.2015.
25. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly observed that
the letter dated 03.04.1989 was addressed to the deceased Hari Ram. The
letter was, in fact, addressed to his legal heirs and duly served at the address
of his legal heirs. According to him, the deposit of earnest money by the
heirs pursuant to the letter dated 27.03.1991 implies their acceptance of the
plot measuring 40 sq. yards. Notably, no objection was raised by any the
legal heirs.
26. Reliance was placed by Mr. Dhingra on the judgment in the case of
State of Jammu &. Kashmir v. C R.K. Zalpuri and Ors., (2015) 15 SCC
602 to contend that the petition should have been dismissed on delay and
laches alone. Reliance was also placed by him on the case of Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. v. T.T. Murali
Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108; and City and Industrial Development
Cooperation v. Dosu Andershi Bhiwandiwala and Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 168.
27. He has prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
28. Per contra, Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent stated the reduction of the size of the alternate accommodation
from 250 sq. yards to 40 sq yards is arbitrary and illegal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 9 of 28
15:08:48
29. His submission is that after the protracted scrutiny of the
Respondent’s entitlement, the Delhi Administration wrote to the Appellant,
vide letter No. F.32 /5110 1l80 -L& B/ALTI 40011 dated 30.11.1983,
recommending allotment of an alternative plot measuring 250 sq. yards in
South Zone to the grandfather of the Respondent under the Scheme in lieu of
his land admeasuring 890 sq. yards in Kh nos. 8 & 504 of Village Chirag
Delhi vide award no. 1802 dated 23.03.1965. Another letter dated
01.08.1984 bearing No. F.32(5YlD1I80-L&B/ALTJ23839, further
confirmed the recommendation dated 30.11.1983.
30. He stated that the Respondent made numerous representations before
the Appellant that the reduction of size of plot effected vide the letter dated
23.03.2015 is illegal and arbitrary as this Court has already settled the law in
this regard in the case of Shiv Devi Virlley v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and
Others, AIR 1987 Delhi 46, which has also been reaffirmed in the case of
Adarsh v. Union of India, LPA No.2593/2005 wherein the order of
reduction in size of plot has been held illegal and arbitrary. This judgment
has also been upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 21712/2006 titled
DDA v. Adarsh Sharma and Ors.
31. It is his submission that the Respondent made numerous
representations dated 10.06.2013, 04.03.2014, 07.04.2014, 31.07.2014,
13.01.2015, 16.03.2015 and 06.01.2017 to the Appellant. He was assured by
the Appellant that the issue is under consideration; however, no action was
taken by the Appellant. It is stated that the action of the Appellant is in
violation of Sections 21 and 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (the
Act) and Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. He stated that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 10 of 28
15:08:48
right of the Appellant to an alternate plot measuring 250 sq. yards accrued
under State policy, consequent to which the allotment in his name was
confirmed. Hence, this right of the Respondent cannot be taken away by the
Appellant.
32. According to him, the review of the policy of allotment of alternate
plots took place on 15.09.1986 and thus became applicable only to those
cases where the award was announced on and after 03.04.1986. The change
was not retrospective and as such, could not affect the Respondent’s right
and entitlement to an alternative plot according to old policy. The
Respondent cannot be deprived of his valuable rights to the land in the name
of change of policy when in fact, the Appellant had found him entitled to the
same and even issued the letter of allotment dated 01.08.1984. He has stated
that the reduction of land from 250 sq. yards to 40 sq. yards is against the
tenets of law and settled legal principles.
33. He has sought dismissal of the appeal.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
34. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the short issue which
arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge is justified in
quashing the decision of the Appellant to reduce the size of the plot allotted
to the Respondent herein from 250 sq. yards to 40 sq. yards.
35. Suffice it to state, the land admeasuring 1 bigha and 15 biswas of the
predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent, namely Hari Ram, was acquired
by the Delhi Administration and an award in that regard was passed on
23.03.1965. On 30.11.1983, the Delhi Administration wrote a letter to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 11 of 28
15:08:48
Appellant recommending the allotment of an alternative plot of 250 sq.
yards in South Zone in favour of Hari Ram. In effect, the Delhi
Administration addressed a letter to the Appellant confirming this
recommendation.
36. It is an admitted fact that Hari Ram expired on 19.02.1986. There is
also no dispute that on the next day, i.e., 20.02.1986, the Appellant had
revised the policy qua allotment of the alternative plots in respect of the
pending applications wherein the plot size does not exceed 1000 sq. yards,
the size of the alternative plot which the Appellant would recommend for
allotment stood reduced to 40 sq. yards and the said applicants to be allotted
the plots under Rohini Residential Scheme.
37. It may be also stated here that there was inter se dispute amongst the
family members of Hari Ram. It is to be noted that Smt. Bhagwan Devi and
Ved Prakash had deposited Rs.3,000/- each as earnest money towards the
alternative plot of 250 sq. yards on the same date, i.e., 13.06.1986. On
03.04.1989, the Appellant sent a letter addressed to the deceased Hari Ram
informing him that he has been allotted an alternative land measuring 31.69
sq. mtrs. This plot, bearing Plot No.86, Pocket G-4, Sector 11 was allotted in
the draw of lots dated 27.03.1991, but the allotment letter was never issued.
This was primarily because the legal heirs failed to furnish the documents
sought by the Appellant for substitution of their names as legal heirs and
failed to comply with the necessary formalities.
38. The Appellant vide a letter dated 03.02.2015, received a request from
the Respondent herein, who is grandson of Hari Ram to substitute his name
in place of deceased Hari Ram in the recommendation letter dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 12 of 28
15:08:48
30.11.1983, on the basis of the two relinquishment deeds dated 12.11.2014
and 06.01.2015. The Appellant complied with the request and incorporated
the name of the Respondent herein in place of deceased Hari Ram.
39. Subsequently, by way of the letter dated 23.03.2015, the Appellant
conveyed to the Respondent that as per the change in policy, the size of the
alternative plot to be allotted stood reduced to 40 sq. yards. It is this letter,
which was the subject matter of the challenge before the learned Single
Judge.
40. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order, has stated as under:-
“32. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
33. As indicated above, the issue which arises for
consideration before this court is : could the DDA have
reduced the plot size based on a policy decision which was
taken after the letter of recommendation had been issued in
favour of the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest?
34. A perusal of the relevant extract of the policy decision
taken on 20.02.1986 would show that the policy applied to
“pending applications”.
“ORDER
In a meeting held at Rajniwas on 20.02.1986 regarding
allotment of alternative plots under the scheme,
‘Large-Acquisition Development and Disposal of the
Land in Delhi’ following decision have been taken :
(a) In respect of pending applications where land
acquired is upto 1000 sq. yds. the plot in size to be
recommended to DDA shall be reduced to 40 sq.
yds. All such applications shall be given a plot
under the Rohini scheme irrespective of the area
where the land acquired was allocated.
xxx xxx xxx”
(emphasis in mine)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 13 of 28
15:08:48
35. Insofar as the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest was
concerned, his application had been acted upon and a
recommendation was made on 30.11.1983, which was,
confirmed on 01.08.1984. The recommendation made was
that Hari Ram should be allotted an alternate plot ad
measuring 250 sqr.mtrs. It is not in dispute that the land
which was acquired by the DDA ad measured 890 sqr.yds.
against which compensation of Rs.5,066.24 was paid to the
petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest.
36. Besides this, Ms. Vishnoi is correct in her submission
that the instant issue is covered by the judgment of the
Division Bench of this court rendered in Adarsh Sharma’s
case. The relevant observations made by the Division Bench
are extracted hereafter :
“The short question which has to be determined as to
whether the Appellant who is entitled under the policy
of1989 or pursuant to the policy which existed prior to
1989. The letter issued by the Government of Delhi
recommending the case of the Appellant was as per the
policy which was in existence at that time. We find
force in the argument of counsel for the Appellant that
the Land and Building Department, Government of
Delhi had recommended the case of the Appellant
pursuant to the policy which was in vogue at the
relevant time. As a matter of fact, our attention was
drawn to the policy by the learned counsel for the DDA
itself which is at page 52 of the paper book. As per this
policy, the issue of allotment of plots by the DDA was
discussed in a meeting held in the Chamber of the
Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on 22.5.86. The policy
makes abundantly clear that the DDA would allot plots
to all eligible claimants and the size of the plot would
be the same as recommended by the department i.e. the
Department of Land and Building. Apart from that, it
was also made clear that the allotment should be made
in the same area as far as possible. This is how the
allotment of plots by DDA have to be considered (page
53, para 2). Now let us examine as to whether the
finding returned by the learned Single Judge is as perSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 14 of 28
15:08:48
the said policy of DDA and non-deposit of the amount
by the Appellant was futile to get the relief sought for.
Vide letter dated 6th February, 1986 as reproduced
above, the Appellant was entitled for a plot measuring
250 square yards in the South Zone. We fail to
understand as to how the letter dated 9th August, 1986
was written by the DDA implementing the policy of
1989 which had not yet come in force. The DDA was
bound to allot land in the same locality where the land
of the Appellant was acquired as per the allotment
letter dated 6.2.86 and as per the policy reflected in the
minutes dated 22.5.86. There is no dispute that the
land of the Appellant was acquired by the DDA. If the
DDA has to differ with the recommendation of the
Land and Building Department, that has to be pursuant
to certain policy of the DDA with notice to the affected
party. Not only the policy has been changed and
tinkered with but altogether the size of 250 square
yards for which the Appellant was entitled has been
reduced to 100 and 150 square yards and area from
South Zone has been converted to North Zone just in a
span of four months. Nothing has been placed on
record as to how this change could have been done by
the DDA. The decision to change ought to have been
effected on account of some material either in terms of
some policy or exigencies of the ground realities i.e.
non-availability of the plot in South Zone or plots up to
250 square yards not being available. Nothing has
been brought on record to suggest except letter of 9th
August, 1986 pursuant to which the Appellant has been
denied a plot of 250 square yards in complete negation
of its own policy of the DDA. Therefore, we set aside
the impugned order and direct the respondent-DDA to
allot a plot of 250 square yards pursuant to the
recommendation of the Department of Land and
Building in terms of letter dated 6th February, 1986.
As the stay order was passed in the writ petition on4th
September, 1989 directing the respondent-DDA to
reserve a plot measuring 250 square yards in SouthSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 15 of 28
15:08:48
Zone and the same continued when the appeal was
filed in this Court which came up for hearing on
November, 2005, therefore, the respondents are
directed to give the allotment letter of a plot measuring
250 square yards in South Zone at the rates of the year
1989 within a period of four weeks and on the receipt
of the allotment-cum-demand letter, the Appellant shall
deposit the same within four weeks.”
(emphasis in mine)
36.1 As noted above, the judgment of the Division Bench
was taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court dismissed the special leave petition on 19.07.2013
and while dismissing the petition, the court observed that
there was “no merit” in the matter.
36.2 It is also not in dispute that the DDA had filed a review
petition which, like the special leave petition, was dismissed
by the Supreme Court vide order dated 25.02.2014. Thus,
insofar as this court is concerned, it is bound by the
judgment of the Division Bench, qua which, both the special
leave and review petition, were dismissed.
37. The submission of Mr. Oberoi that the petition should be
dismissed on account of delay and laches does not impress
me. Both the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and
the petitioner himself had been following-up the matter with
the DDA. Though, there may not be an explanation of each
day’s delay, the petitioner has, broadly, explained the delay
(see Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another
versus Mst. Katji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107).
37.1 As noted above, some part of the delay was on account
of the dispute which erupted amongst the legal heirs of the
deceased Hari Ram. Once this was sorted out, the petitioner
made representations to the DDA on 25.02.2015,
01.07.2015, 26.11.2015, 29.02.2016 and 01.02.2018
wherein, inter alia, the DDA was requested to consider the
case for allotment of plot in the light of the judgment of the
Division Bench of this court in Adarsh Sharma‘s case.
37.2 Concededly, these representations were not dealt with
by the DDA.
38. Mr. Oberoi’s contention that the offer made vide letter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 16 of 28
15:08:48
dated 23.03.1991 for allotment of an alternate plot ad
measuring 31.69 sqr.mtrs. was accepted was pivoted on
deposit of earnest money by Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Mr.
Ved Prakash.
39. On being queried, Mr. Oberoi was unable to show any
acceptance of the offer made by the DDA. The fact that,
once again, the earnest money of Rs.3,000/- was deposited
pursuant to a letter issued in that behalf would not imply
that the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest had given up
their claim for allotment of an alternate plot ad measuring
250 sqr.yrds.
40. Given these circumstances, the prayer made in the writ
petition will have to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned
letter dated 23.03.2015 to the extent it reduces the plot size
from 250 sq.yds. to 40 sq.yds. is quashed.
41. The DDA will allot in favour of the petitioner an
alternate plot ad measuring 250 sqr.yrds. in terms of the
Scheme. Undoubtedly, the petitioner will have to pay the
current rates for the land allotted to him.
42. Since the matter has been pending for a very long
period, the petitioner’s case for allotment will be considered
by the DDA in the mini-draw which follows hereon.
43. The captioned writ petition is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.”
41. As can be seen from the above, the learned Single Judge has relied
upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Adarsh Sharma
(supra) and held that that the case is covered by this decision.
42. However, we note that the Coordinate Bench while deciding the
petition, was not shown the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Ramanand v. Union of India & Others, AIR 1994 Delhi 29, which
has conclusively settled the issue with regard to the right of a party for
allotment of alternative plots. In fact, even in Adarsh Sharma (supra), no
reference is made to the Full Bench decision in Ramanand (supra).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 17 of 28
15:08:48
43. The Full Bench in Ramanand (supra) had posed to itself two
questions while considering the matter. Question No.1, which is relevant for
this case, is reproduced as under:-
“1. Whether a person whose land has been acquired for
planned development of Delhi has got a vested right to the
allotment of alternative plot of land for residential
purposes?”
44. The Full Bench in Ramanand (supra) in paragraph nos.26-28 has
held as under:-
“(26) In the present case, letter dated 28th of December
1988 (AnnexureP.2) did not convey even a firm offer to the
petitioner for allotment of a plot. Indeed, copy of the said
letter sent by the Delhi Administration to the petitioner
made the position abundantly clear that it did not carry any
legal commitment for allotment of a plot. The relevant
portion reads thus: “THE allotment of alternative plot is
subject to the availability of plot with the Delhi
Development Authority. However, it may clearly be noted
that this letter does not carry will the legal commitment for
the allotment of alternative plot.”
(27) Lastly, on the basis of certain observations made in a
Full Bench decision of this Court in Shiv Devi V. Lt.
Governor, Delhi, 1986 R.L.R.557, it was contended that it is
in public interest that individuals who have lost their land
as a result of acquisition should be given alternative
accommodation, and that it is the duty of the State to give
the same. In our opinion, observations to this effect were
made, in paras 20 and 21 of the judgment, for explaining
the beneficial object of the scheme for allotment of
alternative plots, in a different context. In that case,
reference to the Full Bench was made on the question as to
who is entitled to the benefit of allotment of a plot on the
acquisition of land. This question had arisen in the light of
three phases of acquisition proceedings envisaged under the
Land Acquisition Act, namely, when the notification under
Section 4 is issued, when the declaration under Section 6 is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 18 of 28
15:08:48
made, and when the land is actually acquired by making an
award. Earlier, “the view taken by various Benches was that
individuals whose land has been acquired would be.
considered for allotment of an alternative plot for
residential purpose in certain circumstances. Then, in
Krishan Kumar Manik V. Union of India and others, it was
held that the person who owned the land at the time when
the notification under Section 4 was issued, and not the
subsequent transferees, would be entitled to apply for an
alternative plot. The Full Bench disagreed with the view
taken in Krishan Kumar Manik‘s case and confirmed the
view taken earlier that individuals whose land had been
acquired would be “entitled to be considered” for allotment
of a plot “in certain circumstances”. It was further held that
any one whose land has been acquired “is entitled to apply”
for allotment of an alternative plot. The observations made
in this judgment really go against the proposition sought to
be advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
(28) As a result of the above discussion, we find that an
individual whose land has been acquired for planned
development of Delhi, has no absolute right to allotment,
but, he is eligible to be considered for allotment of an
alternative plot for residential purposes; and that the DDA
may allot Nazul land to such an individual, in conformity
with the plans and subject to other provisions of the Nazul
Rules.”
45. In the present case, the letter dated 30.11.1983 written by the
erstwhile Delhi Administration to the Appellant, copy whereof was
forwarded to the grandfather of the Respondent, reads as under:-
“DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
VIKAS BHAVAN, DELHI
NO.r.32/5/10 1/80-L&B/ALT/40011 Dated the 30.11.1983
To,
Deputy Director(Residential),
Delhi Development Authority,Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 19 of 28
15:08:48
New Delhi
Subject: Allotment of alternative Plot Under the Scheme of
“Large Scale Acquisition, Development & Disposal of Land
in Delhi-1961”
Sir,
I am directed to request you to allot a plot measuring 250
sq. yds. (Two Hundred Fifty Square Yards) only to Hari
Ram S/o Smt. Asarfi Devi in South Zone Residential Scheme
in lieu of his land measuring 890 Square yards in Kh nos. 8
& 504 of Village Chirag Delhi vide award no. 1802 dated
23.03.65 as he has been found entitled for the same.
You are requested to acknowledge the receipt of this letter
and have the recommendation confirmed from the Sec. or
Joint Secy. (L&B) Delhi Administration. Delhi before
making allotment as recommended.
Yours faithfully
sd
(C.B. Yaday)
Deputy Director, (ALLOT)
Copy Forwarded to Shri Hari ram S/o Smt.Asarfi Devi
R/o H. No. 512, Chirag Delhi. Further correspondence in
the matter may please be made with the above mentioned
officer. The allotment of alternative plot is subject to the
availability of plot with the Delhi Development Authority
and that in case by virtue of allotment of this plot you come
to hold in excess of the ceiling limit. He shall apply to the
Competent Authority as per the provisions of Sec. 15 of the
Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation Act, 1976. However, it
may clearly be noted that this letter does not carry with the
legal commitment for the alternative plot.
Your’s faithfully
Sd
(C.B. Yadav)
Deputy Director, (ALLOT)”
(emphasis supplied)
46. This was followed by a further letter dated 01.08.1984 from Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 20 of 28
15:08:48
Administration to the Appellant confirming its recommendation dated
30.11.1983 for allotment of an alternative plot. The said letter is extracted
below:-
47. It has however come on record that the Appellant did not allot or offer
to allot an alternative plot admeasuring 250 sq. yards to Hari Ram in
pursuance to the said letters. The issue of allotment of an alternative plot to
Hari Ram remained pending with Appellant and he passed away onSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 21 of 28
15:08:48
19.02.1986. In the meantime, Delhi Administration revised the policy qua
allotment of alternate plots on 20.02.1986, whereunder the plot size to be
recommended stood reduced to 40 sq. yards.
48. A perusal of the letter dated 30.11.1983 shows that the Delhi
Administration had clarified to Hari Ram that allotment of the alternative
plot would be subject to availability of plots.
The first offer of allotment issued by the Appellant qua in pursuance
to the recommendation of the Delhi Administration is dated 03.04.1989.
This letter offered plot of land admeasuring 31.69 sq. meters in terms of the
policy dated 20.02.1986. As such, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge
that a substantive right to an alternative plot measuring 250 sq. yards has
accrued to the Respondent, as on 01.08.1984 is not appealing, more so in
view of the ratio in Ramanand (supra). So also, the Respondent’s
contention that the letter dated 01.08.1984 issued by Delhi Administration,
GNCTD is akin to letter of allotment is incorrect as the letter of allotment
has to be issued by the Appellant herein, which was only issued on
03.04.1989; and this letter was for 40 sq. yards.
49. In Amolak Raj (supra), the Appellant therein was allotted a plot of
land admeasuring 200 sq. yards under Rohini Residential Scheme. The
Appellant approached this Court contending that he was entitled to a plot
admeasuring 800 sq. yards as another evacuee had been provided a plot
measuring 800 sq. yards under the same notification. However, this Court
had observed that the allotment made in favour of that evacuee was much
prior to the date of the recommendation to the Appellant. The Supreme
Court while referring to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 22 of 28
15:08:48
Ramanand (supra) has held as under:-
“The full bench of the High Court in the case of Ramanand
(supra), noticed in the impugned judgment, held that a
person whose land has been acquired has no absolute
vested right to claim allotment of a plot as a matter of right;
of course if a scheme provides for allotment of alternative
plot, the same could be considered based on the scheme and
the policy; it is clear from the records that the scheme of
allotment of alternative plots for the persons whose lands
are acquired was modified from time to time; the Appellant
was allotted a plot as per the prevailing policy and the
scheme as on the date of allotment. In our view, the
Appellant could not claim to be allotted a plot in a
particular area of his choice, even the recommendation
made in his favour as extracted above clearly shows that
allotment of alternative plot was subject to availability of
plot with the DDA and that recommendation for allotment
was not a legal commitment for allotment of alternative
plot. In this view, the High Court was right in dismissing the
writ petition following its earlier full bench judgment.”
50. We have already noted that the recommendation letter dated
30.11.1983 stated that the allotment would be subject to availability of plots.
Going by the ratio of the judgments in Ramanand (supra) and Amolak Raj
(supra), it must be held that the Respondent cannot claim any vested right to
claim allotment of the plot measuring 250 sq. yards as per the letter dated
30.11.1983 and 01.08.1984. In fact, the only right that has accrued to the
Appellant is to have his case considered based on the Scheme and the
policy.
51. That apart, it is a conceded position that there was some inter se
dispute among the family members and heirs of Hari Ram, which was
finally resolved only in the year 2015. Appellant had issued the offer of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 23 of 28
15:08:48
allotment of plot measuring 31.69 sq. meters on 03.04.1989 and called upon
the legal heirs Hari Ram to deposit Rs. 3,000/- towards earnest money on or
before 20.04.1989, if they were interested in the allotment of the said plot.
This was followed by a draw of lots held on 27.03.1991 and plot bearing no.
86, Block-G, Pocket-4, Sector-11, Rohini stood ear-marked/allotted.
However, since the legal heirs failed to take steps for accepting the allotment
and executing the requisite documents, no allotment letter could be issued
by the Appellant. In fact, the Appellant cancelled the offer of allotment
dated 27.03.1991 due to inaction of the legal heirs of Hari Ram, vide its
letter dated 23.01.1996.
52. There was complete inaction by the legal heirs of Hari Ram from
1991 or 1996 until 23.03.2015 in pursuing the option of alternative
allotment, due to their inter-se disputes. It is only upon such resolution in the
year 2015 that a request was made by the Respondent to the Appellant to
substitute his name in place of deceased Hari Ram in the recommendation
letter dated 30.11.1983, on the basis of the two relinquishment deeds dated
12.11.2014 and 06.01.2015. The said request was accepted by the Appellant
by way of impugned communication dated 23.03.2015, though by expressly
stating that the Respondent shall be entitled to only up to 40 square yards
under the Scheme. The said communication reads as under:
“”DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
LAND SALES BRANCH RESIDENTIAL)
Block-C-11, 3 Floor Viaks Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023,No. F.27(129) 83/LSB (R)/DDA/703 Dated 23.03.2015
To
Shri Satish Kumar
S/o late Sh. Krishan KumarSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 24 of 28
15:08:48
R/o Flat No 218, Suraj Apartment,
MIG DDA Flats, Pul, Pehladpur
New Delhi-110044.
Sub substitution of name in place of the name of the
deceased recommendee in recommendation letter no,
F.32/5/101/80/Alt 40011 dated 30.11.1983Sir,
With reference to your letter dated 03.02.2015 on the
subject noted above. I am to inform you that consequent
upon the death of Shri. Hari ram S/o Smt. Asarfi Devi, the
recommender of 40 sq. Yds, alternative residential plot in
West Zone and on the basis of the documents furnished by
you &other legal heirs including copy of relinquishment
deed duly registered as document no 6075 in Book No.1,
Vol. No. 837 on page 69-74 dated 12.11.2015 in the office
of Sub Registrar, SR VA Hauz Khas, New Delhi, the name of
Shri Satish Kumar is substituted in place the name of his
deceased Grandfather late Sh. Hari ram in the
recommendation letter no, F32/5/101/80/L&B/Alt/40011
dated 30.11.1983. it may be worth mentioning here that
your recommendation has been received for 250 sq yds but
jt. Secretary (land & Building) Vide her letter dated
137(397/1/82-L&B/Ah/370 dated 01.04.87 addressed to
Commissioner (lands) DDA clarified that in case where
land acquired m up to 1000 Sq. Yds and awards have been
announced up to 3rd April 1986 a plot size of 40 Sq. Yds. is
to be allotted in Rohini Residential Scheme.
The substitution is allowed subject to verification of
genuineness of recommendation from Land & Building
Department, GNCTD. Now onwards you are the
recommendee of alternative plot under reference. The other
terms and conditions of allotment/ lease deed shall remain
unchanged and binding upon you.
Please note that in case at any later stage, it is found that
substitution has been obtained by filing false documents,
mis statements or misrepresentation then it will be deemed aSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 25 of 28
15:08:48
case of concealment of facts/fraud and substitution so
allowed shall automatically be treated as cancelled/
withdrawn and property shall vest with the Lessor.
Yours Faithfully
Sd/23.03.2015
Dy. Director (LA) Resdl.
Copy to:
1. Dy. Commissioner (Income tax), CR. Bldg. ITO, New
Delhi-110002
2. Sr. Accounts Officer(R), DDA
3. Lease Clerk, LSB (R), DDA
Dy. Director (LA) Resdl.”
53. As is evident from the perusal of the correspondence between the
parties starting 1989, the Appellant had informed the legal heirs of the
deceased Hari Ram vide letter dated 03.04.1989 that they are entitled only to
a plot of size 40 sq. yards as the land which had been acquired in their case
was 890 sq. yards, which is less than 1000 sq. yards according to the
Scheme. The same letter also conveyed to them that due to non-availability
of fully developed plots, a plot admeasuring 31.69 sq. meters was being
offered to them for allotment, for which earnest money was also sought.
There was an intervening offer of allotment in the year 1991, which was not
availed. The Appellant’s offer of 1989 was not contested by the legal heirs
(including the Respondent) till the year 2015. Much delay occurred
primarily for reasons purportedly attributable to the dispute between the
family members of the deceased Hari Ram and not to the Appellant. The
legal heirs of the deceased Hari Ram, including the Respondent, had not
challenged the 1986 policy change or the subsequent 1989 reduction in the
size of the allotted plot, till 2015. If the Respondent had challenged the
reduction in the size of the plot sometime immediately, after it happened in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 26 of 28
15:08:48
1989, and it had approached the Court at that stage, the same would have
certainly placed the legal heirs of Hari Ram or the Respondent on a better
footing. However, no such challenge to the 1989 offer of allotment was
made till 2015 by the legal heirs of Hari Ram. Even no request was made by
any of the legal heirs, to either the Appellant or before any Court, that a plot
size admeasuring 250 sq. yards be reserved or kept aside, pending the
resolution of the inter se disputes among the legal heirs. No steps were taken
by any of the legal heirs to secure their right to the alternate plot of land
admeasuring 250 sq. yards. This we say so, because, admittedly, despite
repeated reminders from 1991 to 1996, no documents were furnished by the
Respondent or the other legal heirs for substitution of name in the letter
dated 30.11.1983 in the records of the Appellant, for a proper allotment of
plot to be granted. In fact, the Appellant through a letter dated 10.02.1987,
even recommended the legal heirs to resolve their inter se disputes. Hence,
the lack of necessary steps on their behalf cannot shift the delay onto the
Appellant. Much water has flown since 1989 till 2015, when the name of the
Respondent was substituted and a challenge to the reduction of plot size was
made for the very first time. These facts indeed substantiate the plea of the
Appellant that the challenge by the Respondent to the letter dated
03.04.1989 is barred by delay and laches. Appellant is a development
authority which holds the land parcels as a custodian of the public and is
under an obligation to make allocations to citizens in a timely manner so that
eligible persons can have the land for their needs. Land in Delhi is a scarce
resource and Respondent due to its willful inaction from 1989 to 2015 has
frittered away its right, if any, to challenge the Appellant’s offer of allotment
of 31.69 sq. meters for being in contravention of the recommendation made
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 27 of 28
15:08:48
by Delhi Administration on 30.11.1983 and 01.08.1984. The writ ought to
have been dismissed on this ground alone.
54. It should also be noted that it is nobody’s case that the stand of the
Appellant that there is non-availability of fully developed plots has changed
since 1989.
55. Be that as it may, as observed earlier in paragraph 48 above, the
confirmation letter did not confer any substantive legal right on the
predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent to claim allotment of 250 sq.
yards. Hari Ram and his legal heirs were, at best, entitled to be considered
for the allotment of an alternate plot as per the existing policy.
56. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent it directs Appellant to
allot plot admeasuring 250 sq. yards is erroneous and needs to be set aside.
The Appellant is directed to allot a plot admeasuring 40 sq. yards or 31.69
sq. meters to the Respondent, for which the Respondent shall pay the current
rates for the land allotted to him. It is ordered accordingly.
57. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The pending application has
become infructuous and is disposed of. No costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JULY 14, 2026
M
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026 LPA 78/2021 Page 28 of 28
15:08:48
