Gurmail Singh v. Delhi Development Authority

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

NO ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL) * On instructions the counsel for the respondent on 2nd April, 2009 had contended that the name of the petitioner was included in a draw for Rohini Residential Scheme held on 4th February, 2009 and in the said draw, plot bearing No.644, Sector 27, Block C, Pocket I, Rohini, Delhi has been drawn in favour of petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that petitioner is agreeable to pay the current rate on the date of draw for the plot allotted to him and the restoration charges. 2009:DHC:3792 W.P(C) No.8979/2008 In view of the draw of lot already taken place and a plot drawn in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner agreeable to pay the current rate as are payable to other allottees in the draw of lots held on 4th February, 2009 and the restoration charges, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent DDA to issue a demand-cum-allotment letter for plot bearing No. 644, Sector 27, Block C, Pocket I, Rohini, Delhi pursuant to the draw of lot held on 4th February, 2009 within six weeks. On petitioner paying the consideration for the said plot according to the demand-cum-allotment letter and on fulfilling the necessary formalities within four weeks thereafter, the possession of the plot be also given to the petitioner. The lease deed of the plot be also executed expeditiously, thereafter in favour of petitioner in accordance with rules. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own cost. September 10, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘k’