After 45-Year Wait, Delhi HC Gives DDA 6 Months to Decide Lost-FDR Rohini Plot Claims and 2 More to Allot if Eligible

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners’ claims for allotment could be considered under the DDA’s circular dated 16 June 2026 despite their loss of the original FDRs.

The court held

The petitions were disposed of with directions that the DDA consider the petitioners’ cases under the 16 June 2026 circular within six months and make any eligible allotment within the following two months.

It also directed

The DDA may seek substitute documents where necessary and must give due regard to deposits and mutations verified by it.

Petitioners aggrieved by rejection or non-allotment were granted liberty to file fresh petitions; the DDA was directed to communicate its decisions/status through post and email, and existing interim orders were to continue until the cases were decided.

01Facts

The petitioners had applied under the Rohini MIG Scheme, 1981, and deposited booking amounts by fixed deposit receipts (FDRs). At the allotment stage, they were required to produce proof of payment, including the original FDRs, but had misplaced or lost them. Their representations to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) did not resolve the matter, prompting these petitions.

p. 7 · ¶ 2–3

The DDA stated that cases involving lost FDRs had given rise to cheating, impersonation and collusion, and that earlier circulars had not addressed the problem comprehensively.

p. 7 · ¶ 4–5

During the proceedings, the DDA relied on its circular dated 16 June 2026 concerning allotments involving lost FDRs.

p. 7 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners’ claims for allotment could be considered under the DDA’s circular dated 16 June 2026 despite their loss of the original FDRs.

pp. 7, 12–13 · ¶ 6–8

ii.2. Whether the DDA should be subject to timelines for deciding the petitioners’ claims, and whether it could accept substitute documents where strict compliance with the circular was not possible.

pp. 12–13 · ¶ 7–10

03Law Applied

The judgment does not cite any statute, precedent or general legal doctrine. The applicable framework was the DDA’s circular dated 16 June 2026, which addressed the processing of allotment cases involving lost FDRs.

p. 7 · ¶ 6

The Court directed the DDA to consider the petitioners’ cases under that circular, while allowing it to seek substitute or alternative documents where the passage of time made strict compliance impracticable.

p. 13 · ¶ 8, 10

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the circular sought to cover a substantial number of allotment cases involving lost FDRs, but recognised the petitioners’ concern that applying it without a deadline could prolong an already lengthy wait for allotment.

p. 12 · ¶ 7

It addressed that concern by requiring the DDA to decide each case within six months and, where a petitioner was found eligible, to make the allotment within a further two months.

p. 13 · ¶ 8

The Court also accounted for the time elapsed by permitting the DDA to request alternative documents where required documents were unavailable, and directed it to give due regard to verified deposits and mutations.

p. 13 · ¶ 9–10