### Share in multi-storeyed land under 65 sq. metres does not bar allotment under Rohini Scheme.

The Respondent registered for an MIG plot under the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 (“Rohini Scheme”) in 1984

On 16.07.1985, she was also allotted a flat under the NPRS/HUDCO Scheme, 1979

In 1991, she was allotted MIG Plot No. 169 in Rohini and paid the full consideration

Due to the DDA's failure to hand over possession, the Respondent initially sought a refund in 2005 but later withdrew that request in 2011, seeking an alternate plot after learning her original plot was allotted to another person

A Single Judge allowed her writ petition in 2022, but the DDA filed for review, claiming the Respondent was ineligible under Clause 1(ii) of the Rohini Scheme because she already owned a flat with a plinth area of 69.216 sq. meters

The Single Judge dismissed the DDA's review petition via the Impugned Judgment dated 28.08.2025

1. Whether the prior allotment of a flat in a multi-storeyed building under the NPRS Scheme rendered the Respondent ineligible for a plot under the Rohini Scheme

2. Whether the individual share of the Respondent in the land underlying the flat exceeded the 65 sq. meter limit prescribed in Clause 1(ii) of the Rohini Scheme

3. Whether the Respondent's alleged concealment of the prior flat allotment constituted fraud disentitling her to relief

Clause 1(ii) of the Rohini Scheme brochure, which disqualifies applicants who own residential property in Delhi unless their individual share in jointly owned land is less than 65 sq. meters

The precedent DDA v. Jitender Pal Bhardwaj (2010) 1 SCC 146, which established that a flat owner in a multi-storeyed building holds only a proportionate co-ownership share of the land underneath, and if that share is less than 65 sq. meters, the eligibility bar does not apply

NOIDA v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi (2022) 5 SCC 591 regarding the principle that fraud and concealment of material facts vitiate legal claims

The Court reasoned that although the Respondent's flat had a plinth area of 69.216 sq. meters, it was located on the ground floor of a multi-storeyed building

Following the ratio in Jitender Pal Bhardwaj, the Court held that "plinth area" does not equate to "land share"

Since the building consisted of four flats, the Respondent’s proportionate share in the land was indisputably less than the 65 sq. meter threshold

Regarding the DDA's allegation of concealment, the Court determined that since the Respondent remained legally eligible despite the prior allotment, any purported non-disclosure was not material and did not affect her entitlement to the plot

The Court upheld the Impugned Judgment and directed the DDA to hand over possession of Plot No. 23, Sector-1, Pocket-B, Rohini (60 sq. meters) and execute the lease deed in favor of the Respondent within eight weeks