Priyanka Arora and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority

1. Certain additional documents have been filed on behalf of the petitioners in terms of the previous order dated 30.08.2024.

2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners claim that they are the owners of House No. 11-A, partially built up property at JNU Road, Village Kishangarh, New Delhi-10070 having a total area of

250.83 Sq. Mts. (hereinafter referred as the ‘subject property’).

4. Evidently, the subject property is falling under the list of 1,731 „unauthorized colonies‟ pertaining to which the Central Government has come out with a scheme called Pradhan Mantri Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi Awas Adhikar Yojna (PM-Uday) to confer ownership or transfer/mortgage rights to the residents of such 1,731 unauthorized colonies in Delhi, which are located on private or public land. In fact, in the meanwhile, the Parliament has also enacted National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorized Colonies) Act, 2019 conferring certain rights to the residents of such kind of colonies as well as laying down the procedure for their relocation or rehabilitation.

5. In the said backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court raising a grievance that the “authorization slip” dated 28.07.2021 which was issued in their favour after completion of survey and upon satisfaction of documents submitted by the petitioners, has been arbitrarily cancelled by the respondents vide impugned order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Director (PM-Uday).

6. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 would show that the authorization slip in question, issued in favour of the petitioners, has been cancelled on account of the applicants having furnished a false statement in the declaration in their affidavit dated 28.07.2021 to the effect that there was pending no court case, no misuse and no dispute with regard to property in question.

7. While the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA has vehemently urged that the petitioners have themselves submitted wrong information in the affidavit so much so that while applying online on 13.02.2020, under the column meant for “litigation status”, they had declared that “land/property is not the subject matter of litigation/court case”, however, later on, the said position was modified by moving a fresh application on 16.07.2021 thereby responding about query on litigation status, if any, by writing- “don‟t know”. Further referring to the affidavit of the petitioners dated 02.07.2021, it is pointed out that vide paragraph (7), it was deposed by the petitioners that “property referred above is free from lien/mortgage or any legal encumbrance and no dispute relating to title of the said property is pending before any Court of law”, which information was false since the subject property had been sealed for misuse, and the issue was decided by the Judicial Committee appointed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 20.03.2024.

8. I am afraid, this Court is not impressed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA. There is merit in the plea raised by Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that there was no dishonest or fraudulent concealment on the part of the petitioners. The proforma for filing of affidavit for applying under the Scheme (PM-Uday) stipulated that the land/property should not be the subject matter of any litigation/court case. Although the subject property belonging to the petitioners was lying sealed for alleged misuse, it cannot be said that any litigation court case was pending. The sealing of the subject property on the ground of misuse was not a dispute as to the title of the subject property. Elementary as it looks, though the subject property was lying sealed, the „symbolic possession‟ was with the petitioners, and it cannot be said that they had given up their rights to own the property in any manner.

9. Prima facie, the decision taken by the competent authority vide impugned order 23.08.2024 requires deeper examination.

10. Issue notice.

11. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel for the respondents.

12. Let reply be filed within four weeks from today.

13. In the meanwhile, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners in terms of the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 till the next date of hearing. However, the petitioners shall place on the record an affidavit to the effect that they shall not carry out any unauthorized construction in the subject property and they shall also not create any third party interest in the same. The said affidavit be filed within seven days from today.

14. Re-notify on 17.01.2025.