Delhi Development Authority's act unpardonable: HC

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for its ‘lackadaisical’ approach and harassing for over thirty years a woman who registered herself for allotment of a plot in 1991 but never received possession of the same.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed DDA’s appeal against a single judge’s order directing it to hand over the plot to her and said that the authority’s approach was ‘abhorrently unprofessional’ and ‘unpardonable’ and that it was ‘inclined to impose costs of Rs 50,000 on the DDA’.

The bench, also comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad, noted that the woman had asked DDA to refund her money ‘out of sheer exasperation' and despite all the required documents being provided by her to the authorities, DDA went on to demand the original Demand-cum-Allotment and other documents.

 The court refused to interfere with the order of the single judge and remarked, ‘As rightly noted by the learned Single Judge there can be no two originals and since the original has already been submitted by the Respondent (the allottee), she cannot re-submit the same to the DDA’.

“The lackadaisical and abhorrently unprofessional approach of the DDA is beyond reproach and is unpardonable. The facts of the instant case only demonstrate the harassment of a poor lady at the hands of DDA for the reasons best known to the officers concerned,” said the court in its recent order. 

The DDA said that it had issued notice to the woman demanding certain documents so that the plot could be allotted to her. The court stated that nothing was on record to show that a notice, as claimed by DDA, was issued by it and the ‘learned Single Judge has categorically noted that the DDA has lost its file’. 

“In view of the harassment caused to the Respondent by the DDA for over 30 years and for wasting precious judicial time by filing the instant frivolous appeal, this Court is inclined to impose costs of Rs 50,000/- on the DDA,” the order said.