Delhi High Court · 2025-02-12
SH. TARA CHAND vs THE CHAIRMAN , DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-1755/2025 2025:DHC:891
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- SH. TARA CHAND
- Respondent
- THE CHAIRMAN , DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Judgment text excerpt
$~110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 12th February, 2025 + W.P.(C) 1755/2025 & CM APPL. 8415-8416/2025 SH. TARA CHAND .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M S Bammi with Ms. Meenakshi Tyagi, Mr. Virender Yadav and Mr. Deepanshu Mittal, Advocates along with petitioner. versus THE CHAIRMAN , DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER .....Respondent Through: Ms. Chand Chopra with Mr. Piyush Jain and Ms. Neha Bhupathiraju, Advs. for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The petitioner had applied for allotment of a flat under Prime Minsiter Awas Yojna. A draw was held by respondent and the petitioner herein was held successful and was, consequently, allotted one LIG flat bearing flat No.17, Pocket-8, Sector-23B, Dwarka, New Delhi -110078 admeasuring 33.83 sq mts. 2. The draw took place on 23.12.2019 and allotment letter was issued on 14.02.2020. 3. According to petitioner, on account of spread of pandemic of Covid-19, the petitioner could not do the needful and during the pandemic period only, he had sent a communication to DDA requesting them to grant him exemption with respect to interest component. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1755/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:13.02.2025 12:37:40 4. It is submitted that such application was duly received by DDA on 10.09.2020 but he has not received any response thereafter. It is also submitted that on account of some erroneous assumption and mistaken legal advice, the petitioner had earlier sought refund of the amount but the petitioner had always been interested in seeking the allotment of the above said flat. 5. After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for petitioner submits that at the moment, the petitioner would be satisfi