Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13th July, 2026
BALDEV RAJ ( SINCE DECEASED ) THROUGH LR SMT.VEENA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ujala Vishnoi and Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate
Through: Ms. Vrinda Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Soni and Mr. Vishal Vaid, Advs. for
DDA
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA Ms. Avni Singh, PC with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Adv. for GNCTD
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 18th March, 2025, passed in W.P.(C) 4972/2018. The relevant portions of the said judgment, are reproduced as under: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”
2. The aforesaid judgment was subsequently challenged by way of the appeal being LPA 489/2025 before the Division Bench, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 31st July, 2025, in the following manner:
3. Perusal of the aforesaid orders dated 18th March, 2025 and 31st July, 2025 clearly bring forth that the petitioner herein was recognized as a Punjab migrant at the relevant point of time and the petitioner was considered entitled for allotment of a flat in terms of the policy of Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants (“HSRPM”).
4. This Court notes that a Compliance Affidavit dated 08th April, 2026 has been filed on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”), wherein, it is indicated as follows:
5. It is to be noted that as per the aforesaid compliance affidavit, Lower Income Group (“LIG”) flat at Narela has been decided to be allotted to the petitioner.
6. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that only an LIG flat is sought to be allotted to the petitioner. As per the case put forth by the petitioner, under the policy of HSRPM, the petitioner is eligible for allotment of an expendable flat. In this regard, she relies upon paragraph 2 of the policy of HSRPM, which reads as under:
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner does not accept the flat allotted by DDA.
8. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner is without any merit. The DDA has already taken a decision to allot a flat to the petitioner herein. Rather, the petitioner has not complied with the directions of the DDA, and has not submitted the requisite documents for completion of formalities for allotment of flat.
9. This Court also takes note of the submission made by Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate who appears on behalf of the DDA, that the flat in question, which is sought to be allotted to the petitioner, is as per the policy of HSRPM.
10. Accordingly, as per the facts on record, it is seen that the DDA has complied with the orders passed by this Court.
11. The petitioner is directed to comply with the directions issued by the DDA and deposit the requisite documents for the purpose of allotment of flat to her.
12. However, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the DDA for allotment of the flat in question to her and considers the said allotment to be not in terms of the policy of HSRPM, the petitioner is at liberty to seek remedies in accordance with law.
13. Noting the aforesaid, the present petition, along with the pending application, is accordingly disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J JULY 13, 2026