{"id":156713,"date":"2002-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002"},"modified":"2016-08-02T00:53:50","modified_gmt":"2016-08-01T19:23:50","slug":"lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 10 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 10 September, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  S.B. Sinha, C.J.   <\/p>\n<p> 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated<br \/>\n13th September 1996 passed in CW 741\/90 by a learned single Judge of<br \/>\nthis court whereby and whereunder the said writ petition was &#8220;allowed<br \/>\nonly to the extent of directing the respondents to execute and get<br \/>\nregistered, in accordance with law, the requisite perpetual lease deed in<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s favor within a period of two months from today&#8221; (13th<br \/>\nSeptember 1996).\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. In May 1988,<br \/>\nan advertisement was published by the respondents herein to the effect<br \/>\nthat in respect of sale of Nazul land including plot No. A-1\/171-A,<br \/>\nJanakpuri, New Delhi measuring 444 sq. mts., a public auction would be<br \/>\nheld. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said advertisement, the<br \/>\nappellants herein participated in the bid and their offer having been found<br \/>\nto be highest, the same was accepted. The appellants herein deposited<br \/>\n25% of the bid price. According to the appellants, on depositing the said<br \/>\namount, they found that several persons had encroached upon the land in<br \/>\nquestion. By a letter dated 16th June 1988, the appellant brought the said<br \/>\nmatter to the notice of the respondents and requested them for removal of<br \/>\nthe encroachments before any further demand was raised by them.<br \/>\nAllegedly, despite receipt of the said letter, the respondents issued demand<br \/>\nnotice on 22nd June 1988. The appellant requested for deferment of the<br \/>\nsaid notice and requested the respondents to remove encroachments and<br \/>\nhand over possession of the plot, pursuant to or in furtherance whereof, the<br \/>\nappellant deposited the balance amount of 75% of the bid price to save<br \/>\nforfeiture of earnest money in terms of earlier communication on or about<br \/>\n20th July 1988. The petitioner, thereafter, issued several letters for<br \/>\nhanding over peaceful possession of the land in question but no reply<br \/>\nthereto was received from the respondents herein.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. On or about 2nd March 19990, the petitioner filed a writ<br \/>\npetition, inter alia, praying for the following relief:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;b) Direct the Delhi Development<br \/>\nAuthority to pay interest @ 24% per annum<br \/>\non the amount deposited with the Delhi<br \/>\nDevelopment Authority i.e. Rs. 21,05,000\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees twenty one lacs and five thousand<br \/>\nonly) since the date of deposit till the date<br \/>\nthe respondents hand over actual physical<br \/>\npossession of the auctioned plot.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. In the said writ petition, orders were passed from time to<br \/>\ntime. On or about 24th February, 1994, it was observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;Having regard to the circumstances<br \/>\nof the case, the respondents are directed to<br \/>\nfinalize the offer of allotment of an alternate<br \/>\nplot within six weeks from today failing<br \/>\nwhich the respondent-DDA will pay<br \/>\ninterest @ 18% per annum on the deposit<br \/>\nfrom the date the sum was received. List the<br \/>\nmatter on 25th April, 1994. Director, Lease<br \/>\nAdministration, DDA should be present on<br \/>\nthe next date.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. As the possession of alternative plot was not made<br \/>\navailable, the appellants herein filed contempt petition for not complying<br \/>\nwith the said order, which was marked as CCP 232\/1994. By reason of an<br \/>\norder dated 13th September 1994 in CW No. 741\/1990, it was directed:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;Mr. Bhushan learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe respondent submits that jhuggis have<br \/>\nbeen vacated yesterday and it will take a few<br \/>\nmore days to clear the site of the jhuggis. I<br \/>\ndirect the DDA to hand over the possession<br \/>\nof the plot in question to the petitioner by<br \/>\n30th September, 1994. As an interim relief<br \/>\nto the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1 lac shall be<br \/>\npaid by the DDA to the petitioner and (his<br \/>\npayment will be without prejudice to the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s contention that interest should<br \/>\nnot be ordered. The question of interest<br \/>\nshall have to be finally decided at the time<br \/>\nof final disposal of the writ petition and in<br \/>\ncase the court decides that the interest need<br \/>\nnot be paid. The petitioner should be<br \/>\nprepared to refund this amount. It is also<br \/>\nclarified that the DDA shall, make an<br \/>\nattempt to remove the underground wires,<br \/>\nthe poles etc. from the plot before handing<br \/>\nover possession of the plot to the petitioner.<br \/>\nIf there as any problem it shall be reported<br \/>\nto this court. I am told that there is a Peepal<br \/>\ntree in the centre of the plot. The same shall<br \/>\nbe removed.\n<\/p>\n<p> The interim relief, which is granted<br \/>\nas above, is without prejudice to the claim of<br \/>\nthe petitioner vide order dated 24th February,<br \/>\n1994 as well as the contentions of the<br \/>\nrespondent. The payment shall be made<br \/>\nwithin a week.\n<\/p>\n<p> Call on 3rd October, 1994 for final<br \/>\ndisposal in ANMM (at the end), C.C.P. will<br \/>\nalso be listed on that date.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Thereafter, possession was handed over to the petitioner on<br \/>\n26th September 1994. After that, the impugned judgment dated 13th<br \/>\nSeptember 1996 was passed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Mr. Raman Kapur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf<br \/>\nof the appellants, inter alia, would submit that from the conspectus of<br \/>\nevents, as noticed hereinbefore, it would be evident that the petitioner was<br \/>\ndeprived of lawful possession of the land in question for a period of about<br \/>\neight years and as such, as suffered immense loss and damages. The<br \/>\nlearned counsel would contend that having regard to the fact that<br \/>\nconstructions are required to be raised within a period of two years from<br \/>\nthe date of grant of possession, had the same been granted in the year<br \/>\n1988, the appellants could have raised constructions thereupon with the<br \/>\nstipulated time. The learned counsel would contend that as a large sum of<br \/>\namount namely Rs. 21,05,000\/- was blocked for a long time, the petitioner<br \/>\nhas a right to be compensated by way of grant of interest at the rate of<br \/>\n18% per annum.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf<br \/>\nof the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the action of the<br \/>\nDDA was neither arbitrary nor unlawful. It was pointed out that for the<br \/>\npurpose of removal of the said encroachment, the encroachers were<br \/>\nrequired to be relocated at the alternative site wherefor the DDA was<br \/>\nrequired to pay a sum of Rs. 29,000\/- per jhuggi to the Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation of Delhi. An amount of Rs. 22,33,000\/- was paid by the DDA<br \/>\non 13th April 1994 and 16th April 1994 where after the Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation of Delhi was requested to initiate the work of rehabilitation of<br \/>\njhuggi-dwellers on top priority basis. A joint survey of jhuggi clusters<br \/>\nwas carried out by the staff of the DDA and MCD and despite having sent<br \/>\nthe cheques and reminders issued, the jhuggi clusters had not been<br \/>\nremoved wherefor on 7th June, 1994, another reminder was sent. The order<br \/>\nof the court had also been communicated to the Director (Slum &amp; JJ) of<br \/>\nthe Municipal Corporation of Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. According to the learned counsel, even extension of time<br \/>\nwas sought for delivery of possession to the appellants herein. He had<br \/>\nbeen put in possession prior to 6th December, 1994, which was the<br \/>\nstipulated period.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. In the afore-mentioned backdrop of events, the question<br \/>\nwhich arose for consideration before the learned single Judge was as<br \/>\nregards payment of interest only.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. The learned single Judge, inter alia, held:\n<\/p>\n<p> (i) That the unauthorized encroachments being not a<br \/>\nlatent defect, the petitioner could have become<br \/>\naware thereof when he participated and made the<br \/>\nhighest bid inasmuch as the encroachment being a<br \/>\npatent defect, the same could have been noticed by<br \/>\nhim.\n<\/p>\n<p> (ii) It was for the petitioner to ensure that the plot is<br \/>\nsuch of which physical possession could be<br \/>\nobtained immediately on deposit of the balance<br \/>\namount.\n<\/p>\n<p> (iii) Encroachment by jhuggi-dwellers is not unknown in<br \/>\nDelhi. In any event, before the bids was offered, the<br \/>\nappellant ought to have carried out the inspection of<br \/>\nthe plot.\n<\/p>\n<p> (iv) The appellant knowing fully well that the<br \/>\nencroachment still existed, deposited the balance<br \/>\namount of 75% and thus would &#8220;be deemed to have<br \/>\nacquiesced with the situation that he would get<br \/>\nphysical possession only when the encroachers are<br \/>\nremoved by the respondents&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p> (v) The respondents paid a sum of Rs. 22,33,000\/- for<br \/>\ngetting is more than the amount deposited by the<br \/>\nappellants herein towards the bid amount.\n<\/p>\n<p> (vi) As the appellants herein had already been paid a<br \/>\nsum of Rs. 1,00,000\/- by the respondents under the<br \/>\ndirection of this court, no further amount can be<br \/>\ndirected to be paid by way of damages or interest.\n<\/p>\n<p> (vii) The inconvenience caused to the petitioner in not<br \/>\ntaking prompt action was the controversy when<br \/>\nattention of the respondents was drawn by the<br \/>\nappellant in the year 1988 and, thus, the action on<br \/>\nthe part of the respondents cannot be considered to<br \/>\nbe unreasonable or inadequate.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. Although it is true that the appellant had suffered loss,<br \/>\nhaving regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the<br \/>\nopinion that it is not a fit case where this court should interfere with the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. The learned single Judge has assigned cogent and valid<br \/>\nreasons for not granting any interest in favor of the appellants herein.<br \/>\nHaving regard to the encroachments made by the jhuggi-dwellers, the<br \/>\nrespondent has also suffered a loss and in fact, its loss was more than the<br \/>\nappellant himself inasmuch as they had to bear a heavy expenditure which<br \/>\nis more than the amount deposited by the appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. Furthermore, this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the matter by way<br \/>\nf grant of interest or otherwise only in the event it is found that the action<br \/>\non the part of the respondents was wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. It is<br \/>\ntrue that ordinarily, a person who had been deprived of an amount for a<br \/>\nlong tim, would be directed to be compensated by way of interest but<br \/>\nbefore a writ court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, the court may<br \/>\nhave to adjust the equities between the parties. It is true that a learned<br \/>\nsingle Judge of this court by an order dated 24th February 1994 observed<br \/>\nthat interest at the rate of 18% per annum would have to be paid from the<br \/>\ndate the sum was received. But an interim order passed by this court by a<br \/>\nlearned single Judge of this court had merged with the final order. While<br \/>\npassing the final order the learned single Judge has taken into<br \/>\nconsideration all the relevant facts.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. Having regard to the fats and circumstances of this case,<br \/>\nwe are of the view that if in a case of this nature no interest was directed to<br \/>\nbe paid by way of damages, this court may not interfere with the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment although there are two possible views in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. The court, it is trite, does not interfere when the order is not<br \/>\nright, but interferes when it is clearly wrong (See   Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd.<br \/>\netc. etc. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Ors.  , .\n<\/p>\n<p> 17. For the reasons afore-mentioned, we do not find any merit<br \/>\nin this appeal which is dismissed accordingly but in the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 10 September, 2002 Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 13th September 1996 passed in CW 741\/90 by a learned single Judge of this court [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-156713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-01T19:23:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 10 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-01T19:23:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1852,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-01T19:23:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 10 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-01T19:23:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 10 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-01T19:23:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002"},"wordCount":1852,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002","name":"Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-01T19:23:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-madhan-and-anr-vs-delhi-development-authority-and-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And &#8230; on 10 September, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156713","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=156713"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156713\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}