V.K. Jain, J.@mdashThe husband of the petitioner, namely, Late Sh. Praksh Dixit got himself registered for allotment of a plot from DDA under its
Rohini Residential Scheme. Since he had got himself registered for allotment of a plot under MIG category, his income as per the eligibility
condition should have been between Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 24,000/- per annum in the relevant year, i.e., 1980-81. Along with the registration
application, he submitted a certificate issued by Jain Sammopasak Senior Secondary School certifying that his total salary, excluding HR
Allowance during 1980-81 which was the relevant period for the purpose of determination of income was Rs. 11201.60. The said certificate did
not disclose is to what was the house rent allowance if any being paid to Late Sh. Prakash Dixit. Thus, calculated in terms of the aforesaid
certificate, the husband of the petitioner did not have income between Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 24,000/- per annum in the relevant year. When DDA
found during scrutiny of documents that late Sh. Prakash Dixit was not eligible for registration under MIG Category, the said registration was
cancelled vide letter dated 18.07.1983 followed by letters dated 11.09.1985 and 08.04.1986 and he was informed that if he so wanted, he could
be considered for allotment under one category below i.e. LIG Plot. Vide letter dated 18.06.1986 received in DDA Office on 19.06.1986 late Sh.
Prakash Dixit, acknowledged a letter received from DDA asking him to confirm his income, submitted an affidavit stating therein that his total
income during the period 1980-81 was Rs. 12,201 It appears that despite the aforesaid affidavit submitted by late Sh. Prakash Dixit, DDA did not
restore the registration and vide letter dated 12.12.1986, asked him to submit the original FDR so that the earnest money could be refunded to
him.
2. Since the cancellation of the registration was not updated in the record of DDA, a plot of land came to be allotted to late Sh. Praksh Dixit on
05.01.2004. However, since it came to be discovered before issuing the demand-cum-allotment letter that the registration had already been
cancelled, no demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him and he was asked to submit documents for refund of the registration money. The
letter sent to him for this purpose were received back since he was not available at the address which he had submitted to the DDA at the time of
registration. According to the petitioner, vide letter dated 21.10.2004, she requested the DDA not to move for cancellation of the plot allotted to
her. In this letter she referred to an earlier letter dated 08.06.1998 intimating change of address to DDA. However, there is no proof of the said
letter dated 8.6.1998 having been received by DDA. Though there is a reference to this letter being on record in the Minutes of the meeting held in
DDA office on 8.5.2013 but, that was so because a copy of the said letter was annexed to the later communication sent by the petitioner to DDA.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the income of her husband being more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum in the year 1980-81 he was
eligible for allotment of a plot under the Rohini Residential Scheme, the said registration and subsequent allotment on 5.1.2004 was cancelled by
DDA without any justification.
4. With respect to income of late Sh. Prakash Dixit, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 29.05.2006 issued by Jain
Sammopasak Sr. Secondary School, Sardar Bazar certifying that late Sh. Praksh Dixit was paid salary and allowances as detailed in the said letter
for the period from 16.10.1979 to February, 1981. The Certificate shows payment of Rs. 16156.98 to late Sh. Prakash Dixit towards salary and
allowances for the period from 16.10.1979 to February, 1981 and this amount included Rs. 12180.28/- towards arrears of salary for the period
from 16.10.1979 to 31.10.1980. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that if the salary is calculated in terms of the certificate dated
28th May, 2006, the income of late Sh. Prakash Dixit would come to more than Rs. 12,000/- for the year 1980-81. This is also the contention of
the petitioner that under the scheme the income of the spouse of the registrant was also to be clubbed with the income of the registrant and the
petitioner had income of Rs. 9507.17 from Syndicate Bank, during the period from April, 1980 to March, 1981. In fact, even if this amount alone
is clubbed with the income shown in the certificate dated 24.04.1981, the total income would come to more than Rs. 12,000/- per year.
5. Since, the genuineness or otherwise of the documents submitted by the petitioner cannot be verified in a writ petition, it would only be
appropriate that DDA examines the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the documents submitted by her as a proof of her own income as
well as the income of her husband during the year 1980-81, after such verification as may be deemed necessary and then passes an appropriate
order with respect to the eligibility of the husband of the petitioner for allotment of a plot under Rohini Residential Scheme of DDA. Accordingly,
the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to DDA to examine afresh in the light of this order, as to whether late Sh. Prakash Dixit was eligible
for allotment of an MIG Plot under Rohini Residential Scheme of DDA or not. A speaking order shall be passed by DDA in this regard within
eight weeks from today. If the petitioner is aggrieved from the order passed by DDA in this regard, it shall be open to her to challenge such order
in appropriate independent proceedings. No order as to Costs.
Dasti.
