Sweta Singh vs Dda

Court
Delhi High Court

$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010286082011

Date of decision: 29.10.2026

+ W.P.(C) 1208/2011 & CM APPL. 74623/2026
SWETA SINGH
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr Apurb Lal and Ms. Neha Mondal,
Advs.
versus
DDA
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. M. K. Singh, Adv
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH


: JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL)

CM APPL. 25175/2025
1. This is an application filed under Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 on
behalf of the petitioner, seeking an early hearing of the present writ petition.
2. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the
application being allowed.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:38
W.P.(C) 1208/2011 Page 1 of 7

3. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the matter is taken up for
hearing.
W.P.(C) 1208/2011
4. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following prayers:-
“(i) Direct the respondent to issue allotment-cum-demand
letter to the petitioner and handover possession of MIG flat
No. 229, Floor-1, Block D-4 situated at Vasant Kunj on receipt
of cost. …”
5. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/DDA notified a
scheme inviting applications for allotment of flats under the DDA Housing
Scheme, 2008. The petitioner applied under the said scheme for the
allotment of a built up flat indicating her category code as ‘SC’ in the said
scheme vide application form No. 0454024 and deposited the requisite
amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
6. On 07.01.2009, the petitioner was informed that her name was
included in the draw of lots held on 16.12.2008 and that she was declared
successful for allotment of an MIG category flat bearing No. 229, Floor-1,
Block D-4 ,Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was further directed to produce her
original documents with attested photocopies in order to verify the
genuineness and documents, failing which the demand letter will be
withheld.
8. Subsequently, on 15.01.2009, the petitioner attended the office of the
respondent and submitted attested copies of her original documents.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:38
W.P.(C) 1208/2011 Page 2 of 7

9. On 23.01.2009, a notice was issued by the police authorities under
Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with an
investigation of a case. The petitioner replied to the said queries by a reply
dated 23.01.2009.
10. Thereafter, the petitioner has made several representations dated
19.04.2010, 25.05.2010 and 07.09.2010 requesting the issuance of her
demand-cum-allotment letter, but to no avail. Hence, the present petition has
been filed.
11. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, draws my attention to
the paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:-
“4. That the Petitioner/Smt. Sweta Singh vide application No.
454024 dated 2.9.2008 had got himself registered for the
allotment of MIG flat under DDA Housing Scheme-2008. The
petitioner was allotted a MIG Flat Number 229, Block- D-4,
Vasant Kunj, through the computerized draw held on 16
December 2008.
However before the issue of Demand cum Allotment letter in
favour of the petitioner it was found that husband of the
petitioner had also applied for the allotment of flat in DDA
Housing Scheme-2008 vide application number 0454025. As
per the terms and conditions of DDA Housing Scheme-2008.
Brochure serial number IV states "Only one person in a family
can submit application. Family means spouses (if any)
dependent/minor children, if any" so she is not eligible for
allotment of the flat and hence DAL was not issued to the
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:38
W.P.(C) 1208/2011 Page 3 of 7

petitioner.”
12. He further states that since both spouses had applied for allotment of a
flat in the scheme and the same is contrary to the brochure guidelines, the
respondent was within its rights to withhold the demand-cum-allotment
letter and cancel the petitioner’s allotment .
13. In response to the said contention, Mr. Lal, learned counsel for the
petitioner, states that even though both the petitioner and her husband had
applied for allotment of flat under the said scheme, the husband’s
application was rejected at the outset. Since the husband never received an
allotment, the petitioner was the sole successful applicant in the draw.
Consequently, there was only one active and valid application surviving
under the scheme, i.e., application of the petitioner.
14. In the present case, the brochure containing guidelines for the DDA
Housing Scheme, 2008, is relevant and reads as under:-
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:38
W.P.(C) 1208/2011 Page 4 of 7

15. Clause No. 2(IV) of the aforesaid brochure categorically states that
only one person in the family can submit an application for allotment under
the said scheme and the term ‘family’ has also been so defined therein.
Admittedly, in the present case, the husband and wife both made
applications for allotment under the said scheme and, thus, Clause No. 2(IV)
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:38
W.P.(C) 1208/2011 Page 5 of 7

of the brochure squarely applies to the petitioner.
16. I am of the view that in accordance with the brochure, the petitioner
and her husband, both could not have applied for the allotment of a flat
under the said scheme and this restriction is presumably for a valid reason.
By imposition of this restriction, the respondent/DDA attempts to
accommodate as many families as possible in Delhi by providing them with
flats for their residential purposes, which is a dream and a lifelong aspiration
every citizen of Delhi. The said restriction acts as a barrier to avoid
commercialisation of the scheme and to uphold the interest of public at
large. The actions of the petitioners are, therefore, contrary to the clear
instructions.
17. For the reasons stated above , I find no infirmity in the non-issuance
of demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner due to the violation of
Clause No. 2 (IV) of the brochure.
18. The applications submitted by the petitioner and her husband, handed
over in Court today by Mr. Singh are taken on record.
19. At this stage, Mr. Lal, learned counsel, states that amount deposited
by the petitioner, must be refunded, as the flat in question has already been
sold and the respondent has not suffered any loss on this account.
20. In this regard, Clause No. 22 of the Brochure is important and the
same reads as under:-

Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:38
W.P.(C) 1208/2011 Page 6 of 7

21. A perusal of the Clause No. 22 of the brochure makes it clear that in
cases of misrepresentation or suppression of facts, the respondent is entitled
to cancel the allotment/application and to forfeit the registration amount or
earnest money. In the present case the cancellation was for the reason the
petitioner misrepresented and suppressed facts contrary to Clause No. 2(IV)
of the brochure, hence, she is not entitled to the refund of the requisite
amount and the respondent is well within its rights to forfeit the same. This
clause squarely covers the case of the petitioner.
22. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed along with pending
applications, if any.


JASMEET SINGH, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026/AS
(Corrected and released 06.11.2026)

Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:38
W.P.(C) 1208/2011 Page 7 of 7