Holding

The exemption in clause 1(ii) applies to any individual share in a residential house or flat measuring less than 65 sq.m, so the respondent remains eligible and the cancellation of the plot allotment is unlawful.

Summary

The Delhi Development Authority (DOA) allotted a 60 sq.m plot to Jitender Pal Bhardwaj under the Rohini Scheme in 2005. After the allotment, Bhardwaj disclosed that he owned a flat of 62.22 sq.m in Mayur Vihar, which DOA deemed a violation of clause 1(ii) of the scheme’s eligibility conditions and consequently cancelled the plot allotment. Bhardwaj challenged the cancellation, arguing that the clause contains an explicit exemption for individuals whose share in a residential house or flat is less than 65 sq.m, and that his flat fell within this exemption. The High Court agreed with Bhardwaj, quashing the cancellation, and the Division Bench upheld that decision. The Supreme Court examined the plain meaning of the exemption clause and held that it indeed applies to ownership of a flat measuring less than 65 sq.m, rendering the cancellation unlawful. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition filed by DOA was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the exemption in clause 1(ii) of the Rohini Scheme’s Terms and Conditions applies to an applicant who owns a flat measuring less than 65 sq.m.
Whether the respondent’s ownership of such a flat makes him ineligible for plot allotment under the scheme.

Subjects

urban developmenthousingplot allotmenteligibility criteriaexemption clauseDelhi Development AuthorityRohini Schemeproperty ownershipinterpretation of scheme termsequality clause

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 135

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A
v.
JITENDER PAL BHARDWAJ
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27181 of 2009)
OCTOBER 9, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.]

Urban Development:
1
Housing - Allotment of plot to person already in c
possession of a flat - Allotment of plots by Delhi
Development Authority under Rohini Scheme - Allotment to
allottee cancelled on the ground that on the date of allotment
he already owned a flat in Delhi - Stand of allottee that the
flat owned by him being less than 65 sq. mtr., he did not violate D
clause 1(ii) of the Terms and Conditions of the Rohini
Scheme and thus was entitled to the allotment - HELD:
Though intention of Development Authorities is to allot plots
to houseless, the policy and the scheme has to be given effect
to with reference to the specific wor(iing of the eligibility
E
provision - If ODA wanted to bar everyone owning a pl<!Jtl

- house/flat from securing an allotment, it could have made 'its
intention clear - But DOA chose to make the eligibility clause
subject to an exemption - Such exemption has to be given
effect to - When the term of exemption is specific and
unambiguous, it is not possible to restrict its applicability or F
read into it, a meaning other than the plain and normal
meaning, on the assumption that the general object of the

-
.....;.:.
.
Scheme was different from what is spelt out in the term - Order
of single Judge of High Court quashing cancellation of
allotment holding that there was no violation or breach on the G
part of allottee, as affirmed by Division Bench of the High
Court, upheld.
/

135
H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
,-
Petition (Civil) No. 27181 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.5.2009 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 178 of 2009.

B Amarendra Sharan, Vishnu B. Saharya (for Saharya &
Co.) for the Petitioners.
~

The following Order of the Court was delivered t

~
ORDER
c 1. Delay condoned.
2. More than 28 years ago, on 23.3.1981, the respondent
made an application to the Delhi Development Authority CDOA'
for short) for allotment of a plot under the Rohini Scheme. The
eligibility requirement prescribed in clause 1(ii) of the Terms and
D
Conditions of the Scheme is extracted below:
"The individu~: Oi his wife/her husband or any of his/her
minor children do not own in full or in part on lease-hold or
freehold basis any residential plot of land or a house or
E have not been allotted on hire-purchase basis a residential
flat in Delhi/New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment. If, however,
individual share of the applicant in the jointly owned plot
or land under the residential house is less than 65 sq.m,
an application for allotment of plot can be entertained.
F Persons who own a house or a plot allotted by the Delhi
Development Authority on an area of even less than 65
sq.m, shall not, however, be eligible for allotment."
When he made the application in 1981, neither the respondent
nor any of his family members owned any land or plot or flat in ~

G Delhi and gave declaration to that effect.
3. Nearly, a quarter century later, in a computerized draw, ~

respondent was allotted plot No.158, Block/PKT-C2, Sector- "
28, Rohini, measuring 60 sq.m, vide letter of allotment dated
3/7.10.2005. As required by DOA in its communication dated
.H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. JITENDER 137
PAL BHARDWAJ

11.3.2006, the respondent submitted necessary documents A
and affidavits under cover of his letter dated 31.3.2006 wherein
he disclosed, in pursuance of the above eligibility condition, that
he had acquired a flat measuring less than 65 sq.m in United
India Apartments (Flat NO. 151/A), MayurVihar Phase-I, Delhi.
He also deposited the entire premium in regard to the allotted B
plot.
4. After issuing a show cause notice dated 28.2.2007,
-t
DOA by communication dated 28.5.2007, cancelled the
allotment on the ground that the respondent was already the
owner of a flat. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached c
the High Court. He submitted that when he made the application
for allotment, he did not have any land, plot or flat. He further
submitted that in the year 1994, he had acquired a flat
measuring 62.22 sq.m which was less than 65 sq.m and
therefore his eligibility for allotment of a plot by DOA, was not D
affected. He also produced a certificate from the concerned
\ society and other documents to show that the flat measured
less than 65 sq.m. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition and quashed the cancellation of allotment, holding that
there was no violation or breach on the part of respondent. The E
appeal filed by DOA was also dismissed by a Division Bench.
Leave to Appeal is sought in respect of the said order.
6. The entire issue depends upon the interpretation of

- Clause 1(ii) of the Terms and Conditions of the Rohini Scheme.
The said Clause makes an applicant ineligible for allotment, if
the applicant or his/her spouse and minor children own or hold
F

in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantonment : (i) any residential plot
of land or a house either in full or in part either on leasehold or
freehold basis, or (ii) an.y residential flat on hire-purchase basis.
There is however an exemption. Any individual share held by G

...
-II.
~ the applicant in a jointly owned plot or land under the residential
house which is less than 65 sq.m, will not be considered to be
a disqualification or ineligibility for allotment.
7. The first ground urged by the petitioner is that the flat
H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A acquired by the respondent in 1994 measures 65.79 sq.m
which was in excess of 65 sq.m. This contention raised before
the Division Bench was rejected on the ground that the learned
Single Judge was satisfied on the material produced that the
acquired flat measured only 62.22 sq.m, which was less than
B 65 sq.m and DOA did not contest or deny the same before the
learned Single Judge.
8. The DOA next contended that the only exception to the t
eligibility condition that the allottee should not own or hold a
property in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantonment, was in respect
c of "individual share of the applicant in a jointly owned plot or
land under the residential house being less than 65 sq.m." It
was contended that the said exemption was intended to apply
only in regard to holdings by joint family members or co-owners
and not in regard to ownership of an apartment. The High Court
D has rejected this contention on the following reasoning :
"The.interpretation put by the learned counsel on condition
no.(ii) would be clearly violative of the equality clause under
Article 14 of the Constitution. It is clear to us that the
intention is to exempt all those who have acquired
E residential house which is less than 65 sq.m. provided the
house is not allotted by ODA."
When a person acquires a flat in a multi-storeyed building, what
he gets is co-ownership of the land on which the building is
F constructed and exclusive ownership/long-term lease of the
residential flat. As per Clause 1(ii), where the individual share
in the land on which the building stands, held by the allottee is
-
less than 65 sq.m., he is not barred from securing allotment
from DOA. The other interpretation is that if the measurement
of the flat is less than 65 sq.m and the allottee owns only an
G
undivided share in the land, corresponding to such flat, the ..
benefit of exemption would be available to the applicant.
9. It is true that the purpose of development of a residential
scheme by a City Development Authority is to make available
-
H
·....

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. JITENDER 139
PAL BHARDWAJ

{
plots to those who do not own a house in that city. It is also true A
that allotting plots to those who already own houses, may
amount to denial of plots to other deserving applicants who do
not own or hold any property at all. But the policies and
purposes of development authorities are not uniform. Some

- schemes contemplate allotment of plots to those who are poor
and whose income is less than the specified limit. Some
schemes provide for allotment of smaller plots to economically
weaker sections at a lesser price and allotment of larger plots
B

to high income groups at a higher price. Some schemes make
anyone owning a property, whether commercial or residential c
ineligible. Some schemes make only those owning plots
already allotted by the authority ineligible. Some schemes make
only those owning properties which are larger than a prescribed
limit ineligible. Though the intention of Development Authorities
in general is to allot plots to the houseless, the policy and
0
scheme has to be given effect with reference to the specific
wording of the eligibility provision. If DOA wanted to bar
everyone owning a plot/house/flat from securing an allotment,
it could have made its intention clear by simply providing that
"anyone owning or holding ~ long term lease, any plot/house/
flat in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantonment area, will be ineligible E
for allotment under this scheme". But DOA chose to make the
eligibility clause subject to an exemption. If it chose to exempt
certain categories, such exemption has to be given effect. When
the term of exemption is specific and unambiguous, it is 'not
possible to restrict its applicability or read into it, a meaning F
other than the plain and normal meaning, on the assumption
that the general object of the Scheme was different from what
is spelt out in the term. Be that as it may.

10. In view of the above, the special leave petition is G
dismissed as having no merit. We have assigned reasons,
even while dismissing the special leave petition without ordering
notice, as the petitioner has made detailed submissions and
as a similar issue may arise in other applications.

R.P. Special Leave Petition dismissed. H