POONAM VERMA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
LAWS(SC)-2007-12-54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 13,2007

POONAM VERMA Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Respondent is an authority created under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"). The Act was enacted to provide for the development of Delhi according to plan and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto. Respondent floated a scheme known as Fifth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1982 (for short "the Scheme"). Appellants herein pursuant to an advertisement issued in this behalf registered themselves; their registration numbers being 13463, 16602 and 13464. For the purpose of allotment of flats, lots were drawn on various occasions, viz., in June, 1987, November, 1987, March, 1989, July, 1990, January, 1991, January, 1993. Appellants were not successful therein and, thus, were unable to get flats in locality of their choice. The Scheme was closed. However, with a view to give a chance to those who were not successful in the lots on the earlier occasions, a public notice was issued in some newspapers on 8.12.1993 for release of about 3000 flats which included some built and ready-built ones situated in Kondli-Gharoli. Registrants under the Scheme were entitled to apply therefor. In the public notice, it was categorically stated that the registrants of the said scheme who had not applied for an allotment in that release would not be eligible to apply again for allotment. It was further stated that in the case registrants of 5th SFS did not avail of this opportunity or if they surrendered allotment/ allocation after being successful, they shall be deemed to have opted out of the scheme and action shall be taken to refund their registration money.
(3.) Appellants did not respond to the said notice. Despite the same allegedly they had been allotted Category- III flats. They were called upon to pay the price specified therefor and to take delivery thereof. They declined to do so. They asked their names to be included in the VI and VI-A Self Financing Schemes which were issued later on. Respondent did not agree thereto.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.