Delhi HC Upholds DDA’s Denial Of Flat And Forfeiture Of ₹1.5 Lakh Deposit After Both Spouses Applied for Allotment

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to an allotment when both she and her husband had submitted applications under the DDA Housing Scheme, 2008, although the husband’s application was said to have been rejected.

The court held

The High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the allotment because both spouses had applied in breach of Clause 2(IV), and that DDA could forfeit the deposited amount under Clause 22.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed, along with any pending applications.

01Facts

The petitioner applied under the DDA Housing Scheme, 2008, for an MIG flat and deposited ₹1,50,000.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–13

She was declared successful in the draw and asked to submit documents for verification.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–13

DDA withheld the demand-cum-allotment letter after discovering that her husband had also applied under the same scheme, contrary to the brochure’s family-application restriction.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–13

The petitioner argued that her husband’s application had been rejected at the outset and that only her application remained successful.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–13

She sought a direction requiring DDA to issue the allotment letter and hand over possession.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–13

DDA relied on the scheme’s restriction and, in response to the petitioner’s request for a refund, on the brochure’s forfeiture provision.

pp. 2–4, 6–7 · ¶ 4–13, 19–21

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to an allotment when both she and her husband had submitted applications under the DDA Housing Scheme, 2008, although the husband’s application was said to have been rejected.

pp. 3–6 · ¶ 11–17

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the amount deposited, or whether DDA could forfeit it under the brochure’s terms.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 19–21

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant writ relief, including the relief sought here directing DDA to issue an allotment-cum-demand letter.

p. 2 · ¶ 4

The court applied Clause 2(IV) of the DDA Housing Scheme, 2008 brochure, which provides that only one person in a family—defined to include spouses and dependent or minor children—may apply under the scheme.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 11, 14–16

It also applied Clause 22, which the court understood to permit cancellation and forfeiture of the registration amount or earnest money in cases of misrepresentation or suppression of facts.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 20–21

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 91

04Reasoning

The court treated the restriction as applying to the submission of applications, not merely to whether more than one family member ultimately received an allotment.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 13–17

Since both spouses had applied, Clause 2(IV) applied notwithstanding the petitioner’s contention that her husband’s application had been rejected and hers was the only successful application.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 13–17

The court considered the restriction consistent with DDA’s aim of distributing flats among as many families as possible and preventing commercialisation of the scheme.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 13–17

It therefore found no infirmity in DDA’s refusal to issue the allotment letter.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 13–17

On the refund request, the court found that the petitioner’s application, in light of the second family application, involved misrepresentation or suppression contrary to the brochure’s terms; it held Clause 22 applicable and DDA entitled to forfeit the deposited amount.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 19–21

05Holding

The High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the allotment because both spouses had applied in breach of Clause 2(IV), and that DDA could forfeit the deposited amount under Clause 22.

p. 7 · ¶ 22

The writ petition was dismissed, along with any pending applications.

p. 7 · ¶ 22

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF