Naresh Kumar & Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 15.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 16.07.2026
+ W.P. (C) 6425/2022 & C.M. APPL. 19450/2022, C.M. APPL.
24952/2022, C.M. APPL. 43766/2023
NARESH KUMAR & ANR. ....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dhatwalia and
Ms. Iti Sharma Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Ms. Kritika Gupta
and Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advs. for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
J U D G M E N T
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:
“a) Issue a writ/order or directions to the Respondents to
remove all the encroachments that are existing at Plot No.109,
Block E-1, Rohini Delhi or anywhere else in the bounded area
where the alternative plot proposed to be allotted to the
petitioners is situated,
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 1 of 28
b) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to carry out internal development
of Block - E - 1 and E - 2, Sector - 7, Rohini, Delhi by laying
internal roads, water, sewerage, electricity and gas pipelines etc
in a time bound manner,
c) Direct the Respondents to keep Block - E - 1 and E - 2, Sector
- 7, Rohini, Delhi free from all interference and obstructions
caused by the local residents/villagers to the allottees including
the petitioners and/or their personnel in carrying out their
legitimate activities of construction and development over the
plots allotted and/or proposed to be allotted to them.
d) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to pay interest @7% p.a. on
various amounts paid by the petitioners from their respective
dates of payment and till such date when the possession of the
proposed plot is delivered to the petitioners after completing the
internal development of the aforesaid area.
e) Direct the Respondent No.1 to allot the alternate plot as
proposed i.e., Plot No.111, E - 1, Sector - 7, Rohini, Delhi to the
petitioners, after removal of encroachment and completion of
internal development and deliver possession thereof and execute
conveyance deed in respect thereof within a time bound manner.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE
f) In case the Respondents are unable to get the encroachments
removed and carry out the internal development work in the area
in question in a time bound manner as directed by this Hon'ble
Court, then the Respondent No. 1 be directed to cancel the
conveyance deed, refund the entire amount of consideration i.e.,
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 2 of 28
Rs.6,41,21,363/including the processing fee of Rs.7,18,859/- and
Stamp Duty of Rs.32,06,100/- and Registration Charges of
Rs.6,41,500/- paid on execution of Conveyance Deed
dt.16.04.2021 total of which comes to Rs.6,86,88,040/- along
with interest @18% p.a. from the respective dates of payment till
refund of the said amount. …”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 is the Delhi
Development Authority (“ DDA ”) and the respondent No. 2 is the Station
House Officer of the Police Station, Shiva Road, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi.
3. The DDA issued a public notice dated 09.03.2019 for conducting an e-
auction of the residential properties for the year 2018-19. The petitioners
participated in the e-auction and deposited 5% earnest money totalling
Rs. 7,03,628/- vide challan dated 20.04.2019. The petitioners’ bid got
accepted pursuant to the e-auction dated 24.04.2019 and they were
allotted the residential plot No. 46, Block E-2, Sector 7 , Rohini, Delhi
(“ Plot No. 46 ”).
4. In the meanwhile, the High Court in W.P. (C) 4900/2003 titled Naharpur
Residents Welfare Association v. The Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors vide
order dated 30.04.2019 directed that the auction of the land at village
Naharpur would be subject to the outcome of that petition. Despite the
said order dated 30.04.2019, DDA issued a Letter of Intent (“ LOI ”) dated
19.06.2019 to the petitioners, without informing them about the above
order dated 30.04.2019. In furtherance of the LOI, the petitioners paid an
amount of Rs. 7,18,859/- vide challan dated 24.06.2019 and Rs.
1,53,26,832/- vide challan dated 25.06.2019.
5. The DDA issued a demand notice dated 03.09.2019 asking the petitioners
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 3 of 28
to pay the remaining sum totalling Rs. 4,80,91,121/- within 90 days.
Another writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 11775/2019 titled Naharpur
Yuva Shakti PWA v. Union of India and Ors. was filed and vide order
dated 08.11.2019, this Court granted status quo with regard to the process
of allotment of plots including petitioners’ plot. DDA did not disclose the
order dated 08.11.2019 to the petitioners and rather insisted upon the
balance payment within 90 days otherwise the interest would be levied as
per the conditions in the e-auction document.
6. The petitioners obtained a loan from the ICICI Bank for an amount of Rs.
4.15 Crores and paid the same to DDA through cheque No. 015052 dated
26.11.2019 and the balance amount of Rs. 65,91,121/- was paid through
the self-owned funds which were remitted to DDA through challan dated
26.11.2019.
7. When even after payment of the entire amount, DDA did not deliver the
possession of the plot to the petitioners, the petitioners made repeated
visits to the office of DDA where they came to know that a stay order had
been passed by this Court, staying the allotment of the plots.
8. The petitioners along with 6 other allottees moved an application seeking
intervention in the W.P. (C) 11775/2019 after which the Court vacated
the stay order. Thereafter, the petitioners along with the other allottees
were called upon to take the possession of the plots allotted and get the
Conveyance Deed executed. The petitioners took the paper or symbolic
possession of their plot and were issued a possession letter and a
possession slip dated 19.03.2021. DDA executed a Conveyance Deed
dated 16.04.2021 and the same was registered on 18.06.2021.
9. The petitioners wrote a letter dated 05.07.2021 raising a demand of 7%
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 4 of 28
annual interest in terms of Clause No. 7 of the e-auction document due to
considerable delay in giving possession of the plots which had also been
given to other similarly placed allottees.
10. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to a meeting convened by
DDA on 26.08.2021, the petitioners agreed to surrender Plot No. 46 for
development of a larger park/playground, on the assurance that an
alternate plot would be allotted to them. DDA thereafter initiated the
process for allotment of an alternate plot and proposed cancellation of the
Conveyance Deed in respect of the original plot. However, despite the
petitioners having deposited the entire sale consideration, neither the
original plot nor the proposed alternate plot was handed over, and the
petitioners’ repeated representations seeking allotment and development
of the alternate site remained unaddressed. Hence, the present writ
petition has been filed.
11. Mr. Dhatwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that Plot No. 46,
originally allotted to the petitioners is no longer feasible for residential
purposes. The petitioners have paid the entire sale consideration for
which they had availed financial assistance and had further agreed to
surrender Plot No. 46 on the assurance of DDA that an alternate plot
would be allotted.
12. He also states that the present case is covered by the Doctrine of
Legitimate Expectation and Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel as the DDA
made a clear and unequivocal representation that if Plot No. 46 would be
surrendered by the petitioners an alternate plot would be allotted to them.
The petitioners altered their position based on the promise made to them
by DDA.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 5 of 28
13. He also points out that the local villagers of Naharpur had consistently
opposed any sort of construction activity over the said plot. In such
circumstances the petitioners cannot be compelled to accept possession of
Plot No. 46 when DDA itself has admitted that it is unsuitable for
residential purposes. Therefore, DDA cannot be permitted to approbate
and reprobate.
14. Per Contra, Ms. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent, opposes the
present writ petition and states that the petitioners had deposited the
entire sale consideration in the year 2019 and, pursuant thereto, a
Conveyance Deed in respect of Plot No. 46 was duly executed in their
favour on 16.04.2021, thereby conferring complete title and possession
upon the petitioners. Thus, upon execution of the Conveyance Deed and
delivery of possession, the rights and obligations of the parties stood
concluded, and the DDA ceased to have any continuing obligation in
respect of the said plot.
15. It was further submitted that the petitioners failed to utilise or develop the
plot despite having acquired absolute ownership thereof. Accordingly,
any subsequent encroachment, obstruction or unauthorised occupation
over the plot cannot be attributed to the DDA, as it is not the
responsibility of the authority to keep the same free from encroachment
after possession has been handed over to the allottee. The petitioners
cannot now seek to impose liability upon the DDA for events that
allegedly occurred after the execution of the Conveyance Deed, nor can
they claim an alternate plot on that basis.
16. She further draws my attention to paragraph Nos. 15 and 19 of the
Counter Affidavit filed by DDA to support her contentions. The same
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 6 of 28
read as follows:
“15. The Hon'ble LG returned the file on 26.09.2022 to
reexamine the proposal in light of the following observations:
a. As per the legal opinion, obtained by DDA regarding
the legal tenability of determining conveyance deed in the
absence of any specific violation of terms and condition
of allotment/conveyance deed, the cancellation deed can
be executed on mutual consent of both parties. However,
in this case, the allottee has given a conditional consent
including demand of interest @12%.
b. DDA has proposed for allotment of alternative plot no.
111 without auction to the allottee of plot no. 46.
However, it may be clarified whether the same is
permissible under the Nazul Land Rules 1981 which
provide for disposal of residential plots through auction”
xxxx
19. Upon receipt of the decision of the Hon'ble LG, a
meeting was held under the chairpersonship of the
Worthy VC, DDA on 21.02.2023 to discuss on the
proposal regarding cancellation of Conveyance Deed in
respect of the plot already allotted/transferred i.e., Plot
No. 46. In the meeting, the history of the case, terms of e-
auction, concerned lay out plan etc. were intensely
examined. It was decided that since the carving of plots
and carrying out auction in this case has been in
accordance with the layout plan, and after fulfillment of
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 7 of 28
terms and condition of the e-auction, the Conveyance
Deed in respect of Plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7, Rohini has
been executed and registered which does not suffer from
any infirmity. The option of swapping of plots after
execution of a registered Conveyance Deed, is found to
be impermissible under the Nazul Rules, 1981 and
therefore the conveyance deed cannot be cancelled. Thus,
the proposal made for swapping of plots to the Hon'ble
LG at the behest of the Petitioner could not be approved.
Hence the allotment cannot be cancelled as per rules.
However, in view of the peculiar facts of the case and the
requests of the petitioner the matter was yet again
examined by the respondent but the cancellation of the
allotment already made and alternate allotment was not
found permissible as per the policy, governing rules and
regulations and in Law.”
17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record.
18. Before delving into the merits of the controversy, it is pertinent to note
that Note No. 16 and 17 of the documents received through RTI show
that on a request received from the Additional Commissioner, Projects
and area MLA/Authority Member of DDA Sh. Vijender Gupta the
residential plot Nos. 44, 45 and 46 were merged with adjacent land
earmarked for park, dustbin, urinal/lavatory block. The same read as
under:
“Note # 16
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 8 of 28
PUC received from Addl. Commr. (Plg.) Projects wherein
he has stated that a meeting was held in the chamber of VC,
DDA on 26.08.2021 to discuss the request of Hon’ble area
MLA/Authority member Sh. Vijender Gupta DDA for
merging the residential plots bearing no. 44, 45 & 46 with
adjacent land earmarked for park, dustbin, urinary/lavatory
block. (P-170-176/c)
Further he has stated that allottee of plot no. 46 has
submitted his consent vide letter dated 27.08.21 for
allotment of alternate plot i.e. plot no. 106, Block E1 (as
first preference) and plot no. 111, block E1 (second
preference) in lieu of plot no. 46, Block E2, sector 7, Rohini.
The land department may also examine the financial
implication involved in the relocation of plot no. 46 and
also the cost liable to be paid by the allottee of plot no. 46
for allotment of alternate plot in lieu of the conveyance deed
already executed for the under reference plot. The applicant
Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Pinki Goyal vide letter dated
21.09.2021 has requested to issue the exchange letter or
allotment letter for the new plot to be allotted by DDA, in
lieu of 46, Block E2, sector 7, Rohini. (p-164-169/C).
In view of above, the matter to merge the residential plots
bearing no. 44, 45 & 46 with adjacent land earmarked for
park etc. and the allotment of alternate plot i.e. plot no. 106
(first preference) or plot no. 111 (second preference) in lieu
of plot no. 46, Block E2, sector 7, Rohini is submitted for
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 9 of 28
kind consideration and further orders please.
Submitted please.
21/09/2021 1:24 PM
SD
(JSA)”
“Note # 17
Sub: Regarding revision of layout plan of Block E-1 to E-5,
Sector-7, Rohini near Naharpur and subsequently
exchange/swapping of plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7 with plot
No. 111, E-1 Sector-7, Rohini.
May glance at the letter dated 3.9.21 of Addl Commr (Plg)
addressed to Commissioner (LD) on the subject noted above
page 170-176/C.
Vide letter Addl. Commr (Plg) had informed that a meeting
was held in the Chamber of VC, DDA on 26.8.21 to discuss
the request of area MLA/Authority member Sh. Vijender
Gupta for merging of residential plots bearing No. 44, 45 &
46 (560.29 sqm) with adjacent land earmarked for park,
dustbin, urinal/lavatory etc to make large park and
playground in Block E-2, Sector-7, Rohini in public
interest.
In the meeting it was decided that the request of area MLA
may be considered as all the three plots mentioned above
are not feasible due to standing of fully grown trees on land.
It was also decided that possibility to carve out residential
plots on the DDA’s acquired land in the vicinity be explored
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 10 of 28
and swapped with the area of park and residential plots.
Out of the above mentioned three residential plots,
possession in r/o Plot No. 46 has been issued to Sh. Naresh
Kumar S/o Shyam Lal and Smt. Pinky Goyal W/o Sh. Naresh
Kumar and CD executed.
Further, Naharpur Varisth Nagrik Kalyan Sangh and
Anubhav Sports Clib (affiliated to Delhi Volleyball
Association) have submitted their consent on behalf of
residents of Naharpur that they have no objection if layout
plan of Block E-1 to E-5, Sector-7, Rohini is modified for
increasing the area of the park at Block E-2 and relocate
the residential plots bearing No. 44, 45 & 46. (page 171-
172/C)
Allottee of plot No. 46 has submitted his consent vide letter
dated 27.8.2021 for allotment of alternate plot i.e plot No.
st
106, Block E-1 (as 1 preference) and plot No. 111, Block
nd
E-1 (as 2 preference) in lieu of plot No. 46, Block E-2,
Sector-7, Rohini. page 173-174/C
In view of above, Addl Commr (Plg) has requested to
examine the request of the allottee of plot No. 46 for
allotment or plot No. 106/111 in Block E-1 and convey
about the possibility of allotment of alternate plot to the
allottee as per his request.
He has further requested examine the financial implication
involved in the relocation of plot No. 46 and also the cost
liable to be paid by the allottee of plot No. 45 for allotment
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 11 of 28
of alternate plot in lieu of the conveyance deed already
executed for under reference plot.
In the end Addl Commr (Plg) has requested to convey the
allottee any cost to be paid by him.
In this regard it is stated that a meeting was held by
Member (Admn & LM) on 10.9.2021 and attended by
Commissioner, LD-I and Director, Planning Sh Vikas
Verma to discuss on the issue of allotment of another plot to
the allottee of plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7, Rohini.
It was informed that the allottee has submitted his consent
st
for allotment of plot No. 106, Block E-1 (as 1 preference)
nd
and plot No. 111, Block E-1 (as 2 preference) in lieu of
plot No. 46, Block E-2, Sector-7, Rohini.
It was further informed that Plot No. 106, Block E-1,
Sector-7, Rohini has been put for auction in the upcoming
Phase-13 E-auction. Hence only plot No. 111, Block E-1,
Sector-7, Rohini can be considered for allotment in lieu of
plot No. 46, Block E-2, Sector-7, Rohini.
During the meeting it was pointed out that no such
precedence exists for allotment of any other plot in lieu of
already allotted plot. It was deliberated that since it is case
of public interest , the request of the allottee can be
considered.
The other aspect discussed during the meeting was of
financial implication involved in relocation of allottee of
plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7, Rohini to Plot No. 111, E-1,
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 12 of 28
Sector-7, Rohini. Director (Planning) showed the layout
plan of E-1 and E-2, Sector-7 Rohini. It was seen that all the
plots in question (plot No 46, E-2 and 106, E-1 and plot
No.111, E-1 Sector-7 Rohini) fall on same road and are
corner plots. That is they are similarly placed and hence
there would not be any Financial implication .LOP is
placed at 177-182/C
As regards payment of stamp duty on the newly allotted
plot, it was informed that stamp duty will be payable by the
allottee in r/o plot No. 111, E-1, Sector-7, Rohini. As
regards reimbursement of stamp duty already paid in r/o
plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7 or adjustment of stamp duty
already paid with the newly allotted plot, it was decided to
refer the case to law Deptt to seek their comments with
regards the legal position of stamp duty.
In the end, due to public interest, it was decided that to
consider the case for allotting plot No. 111, Block E-1,
Sector-7, Rohini to the allottee in lieu of plot No. 46, Block
E-2, Sector-7, Rohini.
Sh Naresh Kumar appeared before the undersigned today
on 21.9.2021 and handed over a letter addressed to VC,
DDA, Director (RL) and Dy Director, LAB (Resdl). In the
said letter he has stated that keeping in mind the social
responsibility and welfare of villagers and other
stakeholders has agreed to accept alternative plot from
DDA. He has further submitted that he agrees to pay stamp
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 13 of 28
duty for the registration of alternative plot which will be
provided in exchange of Plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7,
Rohini.
Apart from above Sh Naresh Kumar has requested to issue
him exchange letter or allotment letter for new plot as the
same is required by bank from where he has availed loan in
r/o Plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7, Rohini. In the end he has
requested to provide all necessary documents which shall be
required by him for refund of stamp duty paid for the
execution and registration of the CD for plot No. 46, E-1,
Sector-7, Rohini. (page 164-168/C)
In this regard it is informed if the above proposal is
approved, the department shall be issuing him fresh
allotment, possession and execution letter in r/o alternate
plot being considered for allotment. He can provide the
same to his bank from where he has availed loan. As
regards refund of stamp duty is concerned it shall be
allowed by Sub-Registrar office, Govt of NCT of Delhi as
per existant policy and hence he has to approach the
concerned office.
Now that the issue of stamp duty has been resolved with the
fresh application of the applicant, we may in the first
instant, if agreed submit the matter before Competent
Authority to (1) cancel the allotment of Plot No. 46, E-1,
Sector-7, Rohini, (2) cancel the CD in r/o plot No. 46, E-1,
Sector-7, Rohini and (3) allot plot No. 111, E-2, Sector-7,
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 14 of 28
Rohini to the applicant in lieu of plot No. 46, E-1 Sector-7,
Rohini in public interest.
Submitted please.”
19. Pursuant to the aforesaid proposal, the petitioners were required and gave
their consent on 27.08.2021 to give up his plot for allotment of an
alternative plot namely, Plot No. 106, Block No. E-1, Sector 7, Rohini as
first preference and Plot No. 111, Block No. E-1, Sector 7, Rohini (“ Plot
No. 111 ”) as second preference. The financial implications were also
examined by the DDA and DDA came to the conclusion that there were
no financial implications as both the plots were almost the same in value.
20. Further noting dated 04.10.2021 is also relevant in the present case and
reads as under:
“Since the matter is regarding cancellation of CD in r/o Plot No.
46, E-1, Sector-7, Rohini allotted to the applicant, and then
allotting a new alternate plot No. 111, E-2, Sector-7, Rohini we
may request the Hon'ble LG to accord his approval for
determination/cancellation of CD as a special case and in public
interest. Once approved, a declaration from the court under
section 31 of Special Relief Act, 1963 shall be obtained directing
he Sub-Registrar to make entry in their book of about
cancellation of CD.”
21. A perusal of the above shows that the respondent DDA’s department
agreed for the cancellation of the Conveyance Deed of the petitioners for
Plot No. 46, E-2, Sector 7, Rohini (though inadvertently mentioned as E-
1) and allotment of an alternate plot No. 111, E-1, Sector 7, Rohini
(inadvertently mentioned as E-2). For the said purpose, the DDA was also
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 15 of 28
to seek approval of the LG for cancellation of Conveyance Deed by filing
proceedings under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
22. I may also refer to a letter dated 14.01.2022 written by the Executive
Engineer, DDA to the National Commission of Schedule Caste which
reads as under:-
“OFFICE OF EXECUTUIVE ENGINEER
ROHINI MAINTENANCE DIVISION No.8
3rd FLOOR, MADHUBAN CHOWK, ROHINI, DELHI-85.
F.No. F.11(5)AE-IV/RMD-8/DDA/42 Dated:-14/1/2022
To
The Chairman,
National Commissioner of Schedule Caste,
5th, Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan,
Khan Market, New Delhi-110003.
Subject: Encroachment attempt by Local Villagers (Dalit
Samaj) on DDA land in Pocket E-1, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi
by installing sculpture of Hon'able Dr B.R. Ambedkar as
weapon.
This is in reference to the vacant DDA Land in Block E-1 to
E-5, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi which are adjacent to the
village abadi of Naharpur (Annexure A). The villagers try to
hinder every time DDA or successful bidders of the plots
initiate any work on these parcels of land.
Recently, the vacant residential plots in the area were put
for e-auction by DDA. In order to facilitate the possession
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 16 of 28
of these plots, this office had awarded a work for erecting
demarcation stones to M/s Tilak Construction Co. vide
Letter No. F5(23)A/CS/EE/RMD-8/DDA/2020-21/69 dated
28/01/2021 (Annexure B). During the execution of the work,
the local villagers assaulted the workers of the contractors
when they were erecting the stones in a vacant land parcel
in Block E-1. This land parcel consists of 12 residential
plots (Plot Nos. 100 to 111) earmarked as per the LOP
placed opposite. Beside these plots, there is a provision of
Land for Landless Harijans measuring area 675 sqm and a
park measuring area 584 sqm. But, the local villagers claim
that the entire land belongs to Harijans and DDA has not
acquired it lawfully. After great difficulty, the stones were
erected by the contractor but they were uprooted within a
couple of days by the local villagers.
In order to hinder the process of e-auctioning of the plots,
the RWA of Naharpur village filed a Writ Petition in High
Court vide W.P.(C) 11775/2019. In the petition, they alleged
that DDA has not developed the area around the Naharpur
village and there is a lack of basic amenities like park,
roads, opens spaces, etc. Due to this petition, the High
Court passed an interim order to put a stay on the auction
of these plots. But, on further scrutiny of the case, the
petition was outrightly dismissed by the court as all the
allegations were false and the Interim order was vacated
(Annexure C).
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 17 of 28
The peripheral services around the vacant plots in E-1 and
E-2 have been laid long ago but the internal services were
yet to be laid. Therefore, this office had awarded the work
for laying of necessary services like road, Internal water
pipe line, sewers, for plots recently auctioned to M/s Ashish
Upadhyay vide Letter No.F.5(33)A/CS/EE/RMD-
8/DDA/2020-21/295 dated 28.05.2021 (Annexure D). But,
the local residents of Naharpur Village have been
obstructing the work right from the day work on site began.
On 07.06.2021, the villagers didn't allow the contractor to
work on the above mentioned plot In E-1.
Left with no other choice, the contractor shifted to a plot in
E-2 to work there. In this land parcel in E-2, Plot Nos. 44 to
46 are earmarked. The total area of the land parcel is
around 1500 sqm. Out of this 3 plots of 200 sqm each have
been plotted. The remaining area is meant for a 9 m wide
road, park, urinal and dustbin. The area for park allocated
in LOP is approximately 470 sqm. There is a volleyball
court in this land parcel at present where local villagers
play because of which the local villagers did not let the
contractor work there too. The arguments led to a physical
altercation between Sh. Deepak Kumar (J.E./RMD-8), Sh.
Anil Kumar (J.E./RMD-8) and the local villagers. A beat
constable was passing nearby who intervened and saved the
two J.E. The matter was then reported to the concerned
SHO, Sector-7, Rohini. Finally, a written apology was
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 18 of 28
submitted by the person who hit Sh. Deepak (J.E./RMD-8)
(Annexure E).
Since then multiple meetings have been held with the local
villagers and telephonic conversations with Sh. Vijender
Gupta (MLA and Authority Member/DDA) to resolve the
issue but to no avail. The local villagers did not allow the
contractor to work on site and threatened him of dire
consequences.
Then, Sh. Vijender Gupta and local villagers had requested
to shift the residential plots in E-2 so that the volleyball
court is not affected. A meeting was then held under the
Chairmanship of V.C., DDA, during which the Planning
Wing had submitted two proposals for modification in
L.O.P. so as to accommodate the request of the villagers.
Since L.O.P. for Block E-1 to E-5, Sector-7, Rohini may get
modified due to the two proposals, the works for laying of
services could not be carried out until the final L.O.P. is
issued to this office. This office had requested the Planning.
Wing to confirm the date by which the modifications in LOP
shall be finalized but they refused to commit a specific date.
Then, this office received a request from the Agency to
foreclose the Agreement and make payments for the work
done on site before the work got halted since the S.D.O.C.
for the work was 04.10.2021 and there was no clarity as to
when the work can resume. Accordingly, the Agreement was
closed and the work of laying services is still left.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 19 of 28
Meanwhile, DDA has already e-auctioned the following
plots and handed over the physical possession to the
successful bidder:
Plot No. 88, 90, 102,104 & 105, Pocket E-1
Plot No. 30, 35,36, 46 & 50, Pocket E-2
The conveyance deeds of these plots have also been
executed.
On 29.12.2021, the successful bidders of the plots went to
construct boundary wall around their plots. But, the local
villagers did not allow them to construct the same. Then, on
04/01/2022, field staff of this office reported that the local
villagers of Naharpur Village have erected a sign board at
the entrance of vacant DDA Land in Block E-1, Sector-7,
Rohini. The photo of the sign board declaring the land
parcel as a park illegally, is placed opposite. The matter
was reported to the SHO, Sector-7 vide Letter No.
F.11(5)AE-IV/RMD-8/DDA/04 Dated 04/01/2022
(Annexure F). Then, this office requested him to provide
police force for dismantling the board illegally erected by
the villagers vide Letter No, F.11(5)AE-IV/RMD-8/DDA/05
Dated 05/01/2022 (Annexure G) and Letter No. F.11(5)AE-
IV/RMD-8/DDA/10 Dated 10/01/2022 (Annexure H). On
11/01/2022, the field staff noticed that a sculpture of Dr
B.R. Ambedkar had been installed by the villagers
overnight. The same was immediately reported to the SHO,
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 20 of 28
Sector-7 (Annexure 1). Subsequently, Sh.. Ravi Mahajan
(A.E.-IV/RMD-8) and Sh. Deepak (AE/RMD3) visited the
police station and lodged a written complaint on 11/01/2022
(Annexure J). Then, during the night on 12/01/2022, the
security guards deployed in the area alerted the local police
of some people carrying out tile work around the sculpture
erected. They were arrested by the Delhi Police and later on
released on bail after due procedure. The undersigned
himself met SHO, Sector-7, Rohini on 12/01/2022, who
assured him of strict action against the culprits. A few
police officials have been deputed around the vacant plot to
ensure that no further attempts of encroachment by the local
villagers can occur.
This is a clear case of attempt by these villagers to encroach
DDA land and harm the credibility of DDA, The successful
bidders of these plots are not been allowed to start the
construction on their plots. Such Incidences directly affect
the e-auction to be held in future & down the credibility of
the DDA Therefore, it is necessary that appropriate action
is taken by DDA against these encroachers.
Considering the above mentioned facts, the undersigned
requests that the matter should be taken up by SLO (Engg.)
against the people arrested by Delhi Police and ensure an
exemplary punishment is met out to them so that no other
person dares to make such an attempt in the future.
Submitted for necessary action please.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 21 of 28
Executive Engineer
RMD-8/DDA…”
23. A perusal of the aforesaid letter clearly demonstrates that the proposal for
exchange of Plot No. 46 did not originate from the petitioners. The
contemporaneous notings and documents and particularly Noting Nos. 16
and 17 of the documents received through RTI shows that it was rather
the DDA itself, pursuant to deliberations held with the MLA/Authority
Member of DDA, which proposed that the petitioners surrender the
originally allotted plot, Plot No. 46, in lieu of an alternate plot and it was
also the stand of DDA that the said Plot No. 46 was not suitable for
residential purposes. There is nothing on record to indicate that the
petitioners ever sought to exchange the plot on their own volition.
24. The learned counsel for DDA has sought to rely on paragraph Nos. 15
and 19 of its Counter Affidavit and stated that the allotment of an
alternate plot after execution of Conveyance Deed was impermissible
under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul
Land) Rules, 1981 (“Nazul Rules, 1981”) . However, she has failed to
point out any specific provision wherein the same is prohibited. In such a
scenario, the argument that the allotment of an alternate plot is
impermissible cannot be accepted.
25. The learned counsel of the petitioners contends that the present case is
covered by the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. There was a clear and
unequivocal representation on behalf of DDA that if the petitioners
surrendered Plot No. 46 an alternate plot would be allotted to them. Now,
DDA cannot be allowed to go back on its representation. The Doctrine of
Promissory Estoppel was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 22 of 28
State of H.P. v. Kundlas Loh Udyog, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 932. The
relevant paragraphs read as under:
“59. Upon a conspectus of the above authorities discussed
in IFGL Refractories Ltd. (supra) and other cases as dealt
above, the following principles governing the doctrine of
promissory estoppel may be regarded as well-settled:
(i) The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a principle
evolved by equity to avoid injustice. It operates not in the
realm of contract, nor within the technical confines of
estoppel under the law of evidence, but upon the broader
considerations of fairness, justice and good conscience;
(ii) Where one party, by words or conduct, makes to another
a clear, unequivocal and unambiguous promise, intended to
create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise
in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted
upon, and it is in fact so acted upon, the promise becomes
binding upon the promisor;
(iii) The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a doctrine whose
foundation is that an unconscionable departure by one party
from the subject matter of an assumption which may be of
fact or law, present or future, and which has been adopted
by the other party as the basis of some course of conduct,
act or omission, should not be allowed to pass muster. And
the relief to be given in cases involving the doctrine of
promissory estoppels contains a degree of flexibility which
would ultimately render justice to the aggrieved party;
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 23 of 28
(iv) The doctrine is not merely defensive in nature. Under
Indian law, it may itself furnish a cause of action and can be
affirmatively enforced where equity so requires;
(v) It is not necessary, in order to attract the doctrine, that
the promisee should prove actual detriment. It is sufficient
that the promisee has altered his position, acting in reliance
upon the promise;
(vi) The alteration of position may consist in making
substantial investments, incurring liabilities, establishing
industrial infrastructure, entering into agreements, or
otherwise rearranging one's affairs on the faith of the
representation;
(vii) The doctrine applies with full force against the State,
its departments, statutory corporations and
instrumentalities, including authorities falling within
Article 12 of the Constitution, which cannot arbitrarily
resile from a solemn representation upon which another has
acted;
(viii) Where the State or its instrumentalities frame
industrial or fiscal incentive schemes with the avowed
object of attracting investment and establishing industries,
the representations contained therein are intended to induce
entrepreneurs to act upon them, and such representations
are enforceable. Once an entrepreneur, relying upon such
representation, establishes an industrial unit, commences
commercial production, or otherwise satisfies the eligibility
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 24 of 28
conditions during the currency of the scheme, and the State
agencies recognise them as being eligible, the promise
crystallises, and an enforceable equity arises in its favour.
Whether a benefit has accrued or not in such cases depends
on the facts and circumstances of each case;
(ix) The grant of an exemption, concession or incentive
under a statutory scheme is ordinarily defeasible, and the
Government is competent to modify or revoke the same in
exercise of the very power under which it was granted.
Thus, what is granted can ordinarily be withdrawn.
However, the Government may be precluded from doing so
on the ground of promissory estoppel, which principle itself
remains subject to considerations of equity and public
interest.
(x) Where a specific sanction or approval of incentive, or
eligibility certificate has been issued in favour of an
individual enterprise, and the enterprise has acted thereon
by making a substantial investment, the promisor is all the
more firmly bound by its representation;
(xi) The doctrine rests upon the larger constitutional
principle that State action must be fair, non-arbitrary, and
consistent; governmental assurances are not empty
declarations, but solemn representations on the faith of
which citizens regulate their affairs; and
(xii) The ultimate object of the doctrine is to prevent
manifest injustice and to ensure that a party, particularly
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 25 of 28
the State, does not act inconsistently to the prejudice of one
who has relied upon its promise and altered his position
irretrievably.”
26. The aforesaid principles governing the doctrine of promissory estoppel
apply in the present case.
26.1 Firstly, DDA has made a clear, unequivocal representation for
exchange of Plot No. 46. The proposal originated from the DDA
itself as the said plot could not be used for residential purposes and
thus, was to be merged with the adjoining playground.
26.2 Secondly, the representation made by DDA was made with the
intention to establish a legal relationship between the parties. The
petitioners had surrendered an already allotted plot for substitution
by another residential plot.
26.3 Thirdly, the petitioners acted on the said representation. The
petitioners had already invested a substantial sum, i.e. approximately
6.41 Crores towards the purchase of the plot and had also availed a
financial loan for the said purpose. Since the DDA was actively
proposing allotment of an alternate plot, the petitioners did not and
could not carry out any construction or could not put the originally
allotted plot to any beneficial use. Hence, the petitioners, based on
the promise of DDA for an alternate plot, have altered their position
by not utilising the originally allotted plot, Plot No. 46. The same is
well documented in the official record of the DDA. Faced with the
choice given by DDA and the conditions posed by the local
villagers, the petitioners in order to avoid prolonged uncertainty
accepted the proposal despite the alternate plot being comparatively
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 26 of 28
smaller in size. The petitioners altered their position and agreed to
give up their right in Plot No. 46 solely on the faith of representation
made by the DDA to allot an alternate plot in lieu of Plot No. 46.
Acting upon the said representation, the petitioners also furnished
consent letters dated 27.08.2021 and 21.09.2021 consenting to such
alternate allotment. The petitioners gave up their right in the said
Plot No. 46. Furthermore, the petitioners did not pursue any
litigation in furtherance of acquiring Plot No. 46, rather all the
actions of the petitioners were with respect to acquiring Plot No.
111. The petitioners have acted to their detriment by foregoing their
rights in Plot No. 46 and waiting for several years in expectation of
the alternate allotment. Having induced the petitioners to alter their
position, DDA cannot be permitted to resile from its representation.
26.4 DDA has failed to point out how the said allotment of alternate plot
is prohibited by any statutory prohibition or overriding public
interest at large. Nothing has been placed on record on behalf of
DDA to demonstrate any justification for departure from its previous
stance of allotment of alternate plot. The DDA has also failed to
show as to how the allotment of Plot No. 111 would upset the
scheme of Nazul Rules, 1981.
27. The case, therefore, is squarely covered by the Doctrine of Promissory
Estoppel. Allowing DDA to go back on its promise would result in
manifest injustice to the petitioners. DDA is bound to honour its
representation.
28. Further, Note No. 17 categorically mentions that Plot No. 46 is not fit for
residential purposes and in light of the same the petitioners were
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 27 of 28
requested to give up the same in lieu of an alternate plot. Subsequently,
DDA contends that since Plot No. 46 has already been allotted to the
petitioners, no alternate plot can be allotted. Even though it is the stance
of DDA that Plot No. 46 is not fit for residential purposes, the same is
being given to the petitioners as a residential property. In the light of the
above facts, DDA cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.
29. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and DDA is directed to allot the
alternate Plot No. 111, Block No. E-1, Sector 7, Rohini to the petitioners
or in the alternative any other residential plot of similar size and value in
the same vicinity as an alternate to Plot No. 46, Pocket E-2, Sector-7,
Rohini.
30. Upon such allotment and execution of Conveyance Deed for the alternate
plot, the Conveyance Deed dated 16.04.2021 executed in favour of
petitioners for Plot No. 46 shall stand cancelled and possession thereof
shall be deemed to have reverted back to the DDA.
31. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JASMEET SINGH, J.
th
JULY 16 , 2026/(MU)
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:18
W.P. (C) 6425/2022 Page 28 of 28