DDA Bound by Promissory Estoppel to Allot Alternate Plot After inducing Allottee to Surrender Original Site

The Petitioners were successful bidders for residential Plot No. 46, Block E-2, Sector 7, Rohini, in a DDA e-auction

Despite a status quo order and later a vacation of stay in related litigations involving local residents, the Petitioners paid the full consideration of approx. ₹6.41 Crores and a Conveyance Deed was executed on 16.04.2021

Subsequently, the DDA, following internal deliberations and a request from a local MLA, proposed merging Plot No. 46 into a public park/playground as it was deemed "not feasibility" for residential use due to standing trees and local opposition

The DDA requested the Petitioners’ consent to surrender Plot No. 46 in exchange for an alternate plot (Plot No. 111, Block E-1), which the Petitioners provided

However, the DDA later resiled from this proposal, claiming that the "swapping of plots" after a registered Conveyance Deed was impermissible under the Nazul Rules, 1981

1. Whether the DDA is bound by the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel to allot an alternate plot after inducing the Petitioners to surrender their original plot

2. Whether the allotment of an alternate plot after the execution of a Conveyance Deed is prohibited under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981

The court primarily applied the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, which prevents a party (especially the State) from resiling from a clear, unequivocal promise intended to create legal relations upon which the other party has acted to their detriment

It relied on the principles articulated in State of H.P. v. Kundlas Loh Udyog, establishing that state action must be fair, non-arbitrary, and consistent

Furthermore, the court examined the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, noting that statutory authorities cannot "approbate and reprobate" by declaring land unfit for use while simultaneously forcing an allottee to retain it

The court found that the proposal for an alternate plot originated from the DDA itself, not the Petitioners, after the DDA determined Plot No. 46 was unsuitable for residential purposes

The DDA’s internal notings confirmed that Plot No. 111 was of similar value and that the exchange was in the "public interest" to facilitate a playground

The court reasoned that the Petitioners acted to their detriment by forgoing construction on Plot No. 46 and waiting years for the alternate allotment based on DDA's representation

Regarding the DDA's defense under the Nazul Rules, the court observed that the DDA failed to cite any specific provision prohibiting swap or cancellation by mutual consent

The court held that the DDA cannot be allowed to "approbate and reprobate" by acknowledging the plot's unfeasibility in official records while refusing the promised remedy

The court directed the DDA to allot Plot No. 111, Block E-1, Sector 7, Rohini (or a similar plot) to the Petitioners

It ordered that upon the execution of the new Conveyance Deed, the original deed for Plot No. 46 dated 16.04.2021 shall stand cancelled, and possession of Plot No. 46 shall revert to the DDA