Delhi Development Authority vs Shail Shukla

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 12.02.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 29.05.2026
+ LPA 34/2026 & CM APPL. 5119/2026
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Appellant
versus
SHAIL SHUKLA .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellant : Ms. Manisha Tripathy, SC for DDA
with Mr. Aakash Mohar and Mr.
Saksham Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Dilip Singh and Ms. Iffat
Fatima, Advocates along with
Respondent-in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Appellant
against the Judgment dated 28.08.2025 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed by
the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 217/2024 (“ Review
Petition ”) in W.P. (C) No. 8519/2011 (“ Writ Petition ”) titled as ‘ Shail
Shukla v. Delhi Development Authority ’.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 1 of 14

FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The Appellant introduced a scheme for the allotment of residential
plots in Delhi, namely, the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 (“ Rohini
Scheme ”). Under the Rohini Scheme, the Respondent applied for allotment
of an MIG Plot by depositing an earnest money amount of ₹5,000/- on
02.04.1984.
3. Subsequently, on 16.07.1985, the Respondent was allotted Flat No.
50, A-1, Sector-7, Rohini, in the MIG category (“ Flat ”), having a plinth area
of 69.216 sq. metres together with a courtyard admeasuring 6.82 sq. metres,
under the NPRS/HUDCO Scheme, 1979 (“ NRPS Scheme ”).
4. Thereafter, pursuant to a draw of lots held on 27.03.1991, the
Respondent was allotted MIG Plot No. 169, Pocket 12, Sector 24 (“ Plot ”),
admeasuring 60 sq. metres, in Rohini under the Rohini Scheme. An
allotment-cum-demand letter dated 08.11.1991 was issued to the
Respondent fixing the total consideration at Rs. 59,805/-. After adjustment
of the registration amount, a sum of Rs. 51,310/- remained payable by the
Respondent. The Respondent made the payment of the said amount as
under:
S. No. Amount Challan No. Date
1. Rs. 6490.75 0403404 05.12.1991
2. Rs. 29880.00 0403409 31.01.1992
3. Rs. 14940.00 0403410 26.02.1993
5. Since no letter or offer for handing over possession of the Plot was
issued by the Appellant, the Respondent, vide letter dated 20.11.2005,
sought refund of the amount paid towards allotment of the Plot.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 2 of 14

6. Thereafter, by letter dated 13.12.2006, the Respondent was called
upon to submit the requisite documents for processing the refund of the
deposit. In compliance therewith, the Respondent submitted the said
documents to the Appellant vide letter dated 18.07.2008.
7. As the Appellant neither responded nor refunded the aforesaid
amount, the Respondent addressed reminders to the Appellant vide letters
dated 23.10.2009, 16.11.2009, and 02.01.2010.
8. Consequently, the Respondent submitted a representation dated
29.08.2011 to the Commissioner and Director of the Appellant, withdrawing
the earlier request for refund of the amount paid towards the Plot and
seeking delivery of possession thereof. In the said representation, the
Respondent further requested that, in the event the Plot was unavailable, an
alternate plot in the same sector be allotted to her. However, according to the
Respondent, the Appellant informed her that the Plot could not be allotted as
it had already been allotted to the next registrant.
9. The Respondent thereupon instituted the Writ Petition, which came to
be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 25.04.2022
(“ 2022 Judgement ”), wherein it was observed that the Respondent had
established her entitlement to delivery of the Plot reserved in her favour,
namely Plot No. 23, Sector 1, Pocket B, admeasuring 60 sq. metres (“ New
Plot ”). The New Plot had been secured pursuant to the order dated
08.06.2012 passed in the Writ Petition, whereby the Appellant was directed
to reserve a plot for the Respondent until the next date of hearing, and the
said direction continued during the pendency of the Writ Petition in terms of
the order dated 27.08.2012.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 3 of 14

10. Being aggrieved by the 2022 Judgement, the Appellant filed LPA No.
418/2022 titled ‘ DDA v. Shail Shukla ’(“ First LPA ”), which was dismissed
vide judgment dated 29.07.2022 (“ First LPA Judgement ”), inter alia ,
observing that the Appellant’s lackadaisical and abhorrently unprofessional
approach was beyond reproach and wholly unpardonable.
11. Subsequently, the Appellant filed Review Petition No. 201/2022
seeking review of the First LPA Judgement. The said Review Petition was
allowed vide order dated 17.11.2022 on the ground that the fact that the
Respondent had already been allotted the Flat in the MIG category on
16.07.1985 in NPRS Scheme was not considered. Accordingly, the First
LPA Judgement was recalled and the 2022 Judgement passed by the learned
Single Judge in the Writ Petition was set aside.
12. In consequence thereof, the Writ Petition was relisted before the
learned Single Judge and was allowed vide order dated 16.10.2023 (“ 2023
Judgement ”), directing the Appellant to hand over possession of the New
Plot and execute the lease deed in favour of the Respondent.
13. Thereafter, assailing the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in the Writ Petition, the Appellant preferred LPA No. 292/2024
(“ Second LPA ”), which, after some arguments, was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 10.04.2024 with liberty to the Appellant to seek review of
the 2023 Judgement.
14. Pursuant thereto, the Appellant filed the Review Petition, which came
to be dismissed by the Impugned Judgment. Aggrieved thereby, the present
Appeal has been preferred against the Impugned Judgment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 4 of 14

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
15. The learned Counsel for the Appellant made the following
submissions:
15.1. The Respondent was ineligible for allotment of a residential plot
under the Rohini Scheme in terms of Clause 1(ii) of the
brochure, which stipulates that a person cannot be allotted two
flats or plots by the Appellant. Consequently, the Respondent’s
registration under the Rohini Scheme was void ab initio , she
having already been an allottee under the NRPS Scheme on the
date of such registration.
15.2. The Flat allotted to the Respondent under the NRPS Scheme had
a plinth area of 69.216 sq. metres together with a courtyard
admeasuring 6.82 sq. metres, which clearly establishes that the
Respondent was ineligible for allotment of a plot under the terms
and conditions of the Rohini Scheme as well as the Delhi
Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land)
Rules, 1981 (“ Nazul Land Rules ”).
15.3. The Respondent withheld information pertaining to the prior
allotment of the Flat with a view to misleading both this Court
and the Appellant, which, according to the Appellant, evinces
mala fide conduct on the part of the Respondent in the
proceedings before this Court.
15.4. In terms of Clause 4 of the brochure, the Respondent was
required to transfer her registration under the NRPS Scheme to
become entitled to allotment of a plot under the Rohini Scheme.
However, as no such transfer was effected, the Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 5 of 14

remained ineligible for allotment of the Plot under the Rohini
Scheme.
15.5. Consequent upon the Respondent’s request for refund, the
allotment in her favour stood cancelled, and the process of refund
could not be completed on account of the Respondent’s failure to
submit the requisite documents.
15.6. The possession letter and the demand-cum-allotment letter issued
to the Respondent under the NRPS Scheme were, according to
the Appellant, concealed by her, as a consequence whereof the
second allotment under the Rohini Scheme could not validly be
made in her favour.
15.7. In view of the foregoing submissions, it was prayed that the
present Appeal be allowed and, consequently, the Impugned
Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
16. The learned Counsel for the Respondent made the following
submissions:
16.1. The Respondent registered herself for an MIG plot under the
Rohini Scheme and, pursuant thereto, was allotted the Plot
thereunder. The Respondent further deposited the entire
consideration amount and submitted the original documents as
required by the Appellant.
16.2. Thereafter, despite the aforesaid allotment, possession of the
Plot was not handed over to the Respondent as the relevant file
was stated to be untraceable in the office of the Appellant.
Consequently, the Respondent sought refund of the entire
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 6 of 14

consideration amount on 20.11.2005. However, no refund was
effected in her favour.
16.3. On 09.02.2010, the Appellant called upon the Respondent to
furnish the original FDR. In response thereto, the Respondent
informed the Appellant that the original FDR had already been
submitted vide letter dated 05.12.1991, which was received by
the Appellant on 06.12.1991 under Diary No. 24295.
Thereafter, upon the original file was traced by the Appellant
on 22.10.2010, the Respondent withdrew her request for refund
on 29.08.2011 and sought delivery of possession of the Plot.
16.4. As the Appellant did not refund the consideration amount paid
by the Respondent, it is not in dispute that the Respondent’s
registration remained subsisting and was not cancelled merely
on account of her request for refund.
16.5. The plinth area of the land on which the Flat allotted to the
Respondent under the NRPS Scheme stands, when
proportionately divided amongst the allottees of the flats
constructed thereon, renders the Respondent’s share clearly
less than 67 sq. metres. Accordingly, the prior allotment of the
Flat under the NRPS Scheme did not render the Respondent
ineligible for allotment of a plot under the Rohini Scheme,
since the Flat was allotted to the Respondent on the ground
floor of a multi-storeyed building.
16.6. In view of the foregoing submissions, it was prayed that the
present Appeal be dismissed and the Impugned Judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge be upheld.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 7 of 14

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
17. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the
material placed on record.
18. The principal issue that arises for consideration before this Court is
whether the learned Single Judge correctly exercised review jurisdiction in
passing the Impugned Judgment in the Review Petition seeking review of
the judgment dated 16.10.2023, whereby the Writ Petition was allowed and
the Appellant was directed to hand over possession of the New Plot reserved
for the Respondent under the Rohini Scheme.
19. The Review Petition was preferred by the Appellant principally on the
ground that it had recently discovered a document indicating that the Flat
allotted to the Respondent on 16.07.1985 under the NRPS Scheme had a
plinth area of 69.216 sq. metres together with a courtyard admeasuring 6.82
sq. metres.
20. In the present Appeal assailing the Impugned Judgment passed in the
Review Petition, the Appellant contends that the Flat allotted to the
Respondent under the NRPS Scheme, having a plinth area of 69.216 sq.
metres together with a courtyard admeasuring 6.82 sq. metres, rendered the
Respondent ineligible for any allotment under Clause 1(ii) of the Rohini
Scheme. It is further contended that the Respondent deliberately concealed
the previous allotment of the Flat under the NRPS Scheme and thereby
misled both this Court and the Appellant, disentitling her to any relief.
21. Per contra , the Respondent submits that, when the plinth area of the
Flat allotted to her under the NRPS Scheme is proportionately apportioned
amongst the allottees of the flats constructed on the plot, her share is clearly
less than 65 sq. metres. It is, therefore, contended that the Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 8 of 14

remained eligible for allotment of the Plot / New Plot under the Rohini
Scheme.
22. Clause 1(ii) of the Rohini Scheme reads as under:
“1 (ii) The individual or his wife/her husband or any of his/her
minor children do not own in full or in part on lease-hold or free-
hold basis any residential plot of land or a house or have not been
allotted on hire-purchase basis a residential flat in Delhi/New Delhi
or Delhi Cantonment. If, however, individual share of the applicant
in the jointly owned plot or land under the residential house is less
than 65 Sq. mts., an application for allotment of plot can be
entertained. Persons who own a house or a plot allotted by the Delhi
Development Authority on an area of even less than 65 sq. mts. shall
not, however, be eligible for allotment.”
23. The allotment made to the Respondent under the NRPS Scheme was
in respect of the Flat situated on the ground floor of a multi-storeyed
building. In this regard, the learned Single Judge, in the Impugned
Judgment, placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in DDA v. Jitender Pal Bhardwaj , (2010) 1 SCC 146, wherein it was held
that a person acquiring a flat in a multi-storeyed building obtains co-
ownership in the land on which the building stands. It was further held that,
in terms of Clause 1(ii) of the Rohini Scheme, if the individual share of the
allottee in the land beneath such building is less than 65 sq. metres, such
allottee is not disentitled from seeking allotment from the Appellant.
24. The relevant extract from Jitender Pal Bhardwaj ( supra ) is
reproduced hereunder:
“ 7. When a person acquires a flat in a multi-storeyed building, what
he gets is co-ownership of the land on which the building is
constructed and exclusive ownership/long-term lease of the
residential flat. As per Clause 1(ii), where the individual share in
the land on which the building stands, held by the allottee is less
than 65 sq m, he is not barred from securing allotment from DDA.
The other interpretation is that if the measurement of the flat is less
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 9 of 14

than 65 sq m and the allottee owns only an undivided share in the
land, corresponding to such flat, the benefit of exemption would be
available to the applicant.
8 . It is true that the purpose of development of a residential scheme
by a City Development Authority is to make available plots to those
who do not own a house in that city. It is also true that allotting
plots to those who already own houses, may amount to denial of
plots to other deserving applicants who do not own or hold any
property at all. But the policies and purposes of Development
Authorities are not uniform. Some schemes contemplate allotment of
plots to those who are poor and whose income is less than the
specified limit. Some schemes provide for allotment of smaller plots
to economically weaker sections at a lesser price and allotment of
larger plots to high income groups at a higher price. Some schemes
make anyone owning a property, whether commercial or residential
ineligible. Some schemes make only those owning plots already
allotted by the authority ineligible. Some schemes make only those
owning properties which are larger than a prescribed limit
ineligible.
9. Though the intention of Development Authorities in general is to
allot plots to the houseless, the policy and scheme has to be given
effect with reference to the specific wording of the eligibility
provision. If DDA wanted to bar everyone owning a plot/house/flat
from securing an allotment, it could have made its intention clear by
simply providing that “anyone owning or holding a long-term lease,
any plot/house/flat in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantonment area, will
be ineligible for allotment under this Scheme”. But DDA chose to
make the eligibility clause subject to an exemption. If it chose to
exempt certain categories, such exemption has to be given effect to.
When the term of exemption is specific and unambiguous, it is not
possible to restrict its applicability or read into it, a meaning other
than the plain and normal meaning, on the assumption that the
general object of the Scheme was different from what is spelt out in
the term. Be that as it may. ”
25. The relevant portion of the Impugned Judgment is reproduced as
under:
“ 13. A bare perusal of the paragraphs reproduced above,
categorically shows that a person having a flat would only be a co-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 10 of 14

owner in the proportionate area of the land and would only have
exclusive ownership of his/her residential flat. In such scenario the
area of the land falling under the share of each allottee of a flat in a
multi-storeyed building would be reduced proportionately. Further,
paragraph No. 9 of the said judgment clarifies that if the DDA
wanted to bar everyone from owning a flat after securing an
allotment under other DDA schemes, the same would have been
explicitly stated. Once the DDA itself has made an exception, there
is no requirement to read anything to the contrary.
14. Coming to the present scenario, the document annexed by the
respondent-DDA (marked as Annexure A-8) depicts a table which
shows the area of each floor of the multi-storeyed building in which
the petitioner was allotted a flat under NPRS Scheme. Each flat
owner in that building would have a proportionate share in the land
underneath, as observed in Jitender Pal Bhardwaj (supra). The
petitioner herein was allotted a flat on the ground floor, which as
per the document has an area of 69.216 sq. mts. along with a
courtyard of 6.82 sq. mts. Even if the area of the plot is taken as
69.216 sq. mts. along with a courtyard of 6.82 sq. mts., the
proportionate share of the petitioner in the jointly owned plot of
land would be much below 65 sq. mts., thereby, making the
petitioner eligible for allotment as per Clause 1(ii) of the Rohini
Scheme. ”
26. The decision in Jitender Pal Bhardwaj ( supra ) makes it evident that
the owner of a flat is merely a proportionate co-owner of the land on which
the flat is constructed, while retaining exclusive ownership of the flat itself.
Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has, in our considered view, rightly
held in the Impugned Judgment that, notwithstanding the fact that the
Respondent was allotted the Flat having a plinth area of 69.216 sq. metres
together with a courtyard admeasuring 6.82 sq. metres under the NRPS
Scheme, the Respondent’s proportionate share in the land underlying the
Flat was indisputably less than 65 sq. metres. This is for the reason that the
multi-storeyed building in question comprises four flats, one on each floor,
and the Respondent was allotted only the Flat on the ground-floor
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 11 of 14

thereunder. Consequently, Clause 1(ii) of the Rohini Scheme does not
operate as a bar to the allotment of the Plot in favour of the Respondent.
27. Learned counsel for the Appellant has further placed reliance upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NOIDA v. Ravindra Kumar
Singhvi , (2022) 5 SCC 591, to contend that, since the Respondent allegedly
misled both this Court and the Appellant by concealing the prior allotment
of the Flat under the NRPS Scheme, she was disentitled to any relief. The
relevant extract from the said decision is reproduced hereunder:
“ 23. Fraud vitiates all actions as laid down by this Court in S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1] wherein it was held as under
: (SCC p. 5, para 5)
“5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error.
The short question before the High Court was whether in the
facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the
preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High
Court, however, went haywire and made observations which
are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court
that ‘there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to
court with a true case and prove it by true evidence’. The
principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the
extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of
fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law
are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One
who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are
constrained to say that more often than not, process of the
court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax evaders, bank
loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks
of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the
illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a
person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to
approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any
stage of the litigation.”
xxxxx
27. The fact is that the second plot allotted to the plaintiff had been
allotted against the express terms of allotment. Therefore, there is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 12 of 14

neither equity nor any law in favour of the plaintiff. A person who
misleads the Authority in obtaining allotment of a plot is not entitled
to any relief. ”
28. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention advanced on behalf
of the Appellant.
29. There can be no cavil with the proposition that any person who
misleads the Court or a statutory authority in order to secure allotment of a
plot would be disentitled to relief. However, the decision in NOIDA v.
Ravindra Kumar Singhvi ( supra ) has no application to the facts of the
present case as the prior allotment of the Flat to the Respondent under the
NRPS Scheme did not render her ineligible for allotment of the Plot under
the Rohini Scheme.
30. Even though the Appellant’s contention is accepted at its highest, that
the Respondent deliberately concealed the factum of allotment of the Flat
under the NRPS Scheme, the same would have no bearing on the outcome
of the present proceedings, inasmuch as the Respondent remained entitled to
allotment of the Plot under the Rohini Scheme in the facts and
circumstances of the case, notwithstanding the allotment of the Flat under
NPRS Scheme.
31. In view of the discussion above, we find no infirmity with the
Impugned Judgment that warrants our interference. Accordingly, the present
Appeal stands dismissed and the Appellant is directed to hand over the
possession of the plot reserved for the Respondent, i.e., Plot No. 23, Sector-
1, Pocket-B, measuring 60 sq. meters, within a period of 8 weeks and
execute the lease deed as well.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 13 of 14

32. The present Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above
directions. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 29, 2026
sms
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:12:25
LPA 34/2026 Page 14 of 14