Belated cancellation is impermissible where the authority waived an optional transfer requirement through affirmative conduct.

Late Shri Shiv Gopal Tiwari applied for an EWS/Janta category plot under the DDA Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981, depositing ₹750 as earnest money.

After his death in 2007, the registration was mutated in favour of his widow, Sarojini Tiwari.

In 2012, the DDA issued a show-cause notice stating that she was also registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, and asked whether any allotment had been made under that scheme; it stated that, if no allotment had been made, her name would be considered in a subsequent draw.

She repeatedly clarified that neither she nor her husband had received any allotment under the 1979 Scheme or any other DDA scheme.

She subsequently succeeded in the 2016 computerized draw and was allotted a 26 sq. metre plot in Rohini.

The DDA called for document verification in 2018, and the documents were submitted and acknowledged.

However, on 7 November 2022, the DDA cancelled the allotment on the ground that she had failed to formally transfer her earlier registration to the 1981 Scheme and had thereby violated Clause 4 of that Scheme.

The learned Single Judge set aside the cancellation and directed the DDA to allot an equivalent plot at the rate prevailing on the date of filing of the writ petition.

The DDA appealed.

1. Whether Clause 4 of the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981, required applicants registered under earlier DDA schemes to mandatorily transfer their registration, pay the differential earnest money and surrender the earlier registration documents as a condition of eligibility under the 1981 Scheme

2. Whether the DDA could cancel the respondent’s allotment in 2022 for alleged non-compliance with Clause 4, after permitting her to participate in the regular draw, allotting the plot, and completing document verification without raising that objection

The Court applied Clause 4 of the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981, which permitted persons registered under earlier DDA housing schemes, including the 1979 Scheme, to transfer their registration to the Rohini Scheme in return for priority in allotment, subject to payment of the differential earnest money and surrender of earlier registration documents.

The Court construed the expressions “allowed” and “desire” as permissive rather than mandatory, holding that Clause 4 created an option to seek priority allotment and did not impose an absolute bar or automatic disqualification upon persons who did not exercise that option.

The Court also applied the principles that public housing eligibility scrutiny is primarily intended to prevent double allotment and that an authority which knowingly proceeds with allotment and verification cannot subsequently rely on a previously available procedural objection as a ground for cancellation; such conduct may amount to waiver.

The Court held that Clause 4 enabled an earlier registrant to transfer registration and obtain priority, but did not require every such registrant to transfer registration before participating in an ordinary subsequent draw.

The respondent had not obtained any priority allotment and had only participated in the regular 2016 draw after the DDA’s show-cause notice expressly stated that, in the absence of any earlier allotment, her name would be considered in a subsequent draw.

Since neither the respondent nor her husband had received any plot or flat under the 1979 Scheme or any other DDA scheme, there was no double allotment or wrongful public benefit.

Further, the DDA knew the relevant facts when it issued the show-cause notice, conducted the draw, made the allotment in 2016, and verified the documents in 2018, but did not raise non-compliance with Clause 4 until 2022.

The Court therefore treated the cancellation ground as an afterthought and held that the DDA had waived its right to cancel the allotment on that basis.

It held that Clause 4 was permissive and that the respondent’s failure to formally transfer her earlier registration did not invalidate her allotment made through the regular 2016 draw.

The cancellation letter dated 7 November 2022 was therefore unsustainable, and the direction to allot an equivalent plot at the rate applicable on the date of filing of the writ petition was upheld.

Pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.