PRADEEP NANDRAJOG - (1.) ROHINI Residential Scheme 1981 has been a source of fertile litigation in this Court. DDA bit more than what it could chew. It did not limit the number of applicants under the scheme and as a result nearly Rs.1,20,000/- applicants found themselves registered under the scheme as per which DDA became obliged to allot a plot of land to each applicant as per priority position assigned to each applicant; the land to be allotted as and when acquisitions were complete and development completed.
(2.) THE appellant applied under the scheme. Finding his application to be in order, DDA assigned priority number to the applicant and on 1st-5th September 2003 issued a demand-cum- allotment letter demanding premium in sum of Rs.7,18,872/- payable in installments. THE appellant paid the first installment within time but defaulted in payment of the second and the third, which were deposited with a delay of one year resulting in DDA cancelling the allotment. W.P.(C) No.13302/2005 was filed against the allotment being cancelled and reliance was placed upon various decisions of this Court which had highlighted certain policies of DDA as per which delay in depositing the premium installments could be condoned. The writ petition was filed by the constituted attorney of the appellant who is his brother. The appellant, an Indian born national has admittedly acquired Canadian citizenship and the learned Single Judge has been influenced by the said fact and also the fact that the power of attorney holder has been authorized to even sell the plot allotted to the appellant and in respect whereof view formed is that the appellant has sold the plot allotted to him which was contrary to the policy. The learned Single Judge has also opined that the power of attorney executed by the appellant in favour of his attorney did not authorize the attorney to file the writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent DDA concedes that there was no document filed before the learned Single Judge by DDA to show that an Indian born who had acquired citizenship of a foreign country was ineligible to apply under the scheme in question. It is apparent that the learned Single Judge has been influenced by a fact which had no relevance to the lis before him. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that the appellant is litigating through an attorney, ignores the fact that the attorney is a blood relation (brother) of the appellant and the power of attorney is not for any valuable consideration.;