Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Delhi Development Authority vs Nirmal Jain on 16 December, 2020

Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee

     SLP(C) 11867/2020
                                                            1

     ITEM NO.11                          Court 6 (Video Conferencing)                      SECTION XIV

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F                I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)                            No.11867/2020

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-12-2019
     in RSA No. 15/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)


     DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                                    Petitioner(s)

                                                          VERSUS

     NIRMAL JAIN & ORS.                                                             Respondent(s)

     (FOR I.R.)


     Date : 16-12-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.


     CORAM :
                                   HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
                                   HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE


     For Petitioner(s)                   Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Sr. Adv.
                                         Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, AOR
                                         Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)


                               UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                O R D E R

1 Mr Rajive Bansal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners with Ms Manika Tripathy Pandey, learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was seized of a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1976, and the following question of law was formulated on 5 December 2016:

Chetan Kumar “"Whether the Courts below have arrived at a finding and a Date: 2020.12.16 16:39:47 IST Reason: conclusion which is ex-facie illegal and is in violation of the policy No.1/111812(12)167 dated 19 th September, 1969 and contrary to the documentary evidence led by the appellant". SLP(C) 11867/2020 2

2 It has been submitted that the Second Appeal has been disposed of without answering the question of law.

3 Apart from the above submission, it has been urged that earlier, the Single Judge of the High Court, while hearing the Second Appeal, had passed an order dated 16 September 2016 (reproduced in paragraph 6 of the judgment). The order dated 16 September 2016 required DDA to produce the policy document since, it was observed that there appeared to be a time limit for seeking the benefit of the allotment of an alternative plot by filing an affidavit in one month. It has been submitted that though an affidavit was filed by the petitioner, this aspect has not been dealt with in the impugned order and relief has been granted on the basis that the respondents were equally placed with six other allottees. Mr Bansal has submitted that the case of those six allottees is distinguishable because they had applied according to the terms of the policy within the time fixed.

4 Issue notice, returnable in twelve weeks.

5 The respondents would file their counter affidavit within a period of six weeks from the date of service of the notice.

6 Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners on the basis of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 12 December 2019.

              (CHETAN KUMAR)                                   (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
               A.R.-cum-P.S.                                       Court Master