{"id":172567,"date":"2002-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002"},"modified":"2017-01-31T05:25:36","modified_gmt":"2017-01-30T23:55:36","slug":"ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 102 (2003) DLT 782<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: C Mahajan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: C Mahajan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>C.K. Mahajan, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner<br \/>\nseeks quashing of allotment of flat No. 10, Block B,<br \/>\nPocket-5, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi in favor of the<br \/>\npetitioner vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated<br \/>\n24.9.1991 and prays for allotment of a similar flat in<br \/>\nthe same area on the same terms and conditions and<br \/>\nprice with fresh block dates for payment at which<br \/>\nearlier flat was allotted to him.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The petitioner applied for allotment of an<br \/>\nMIG flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979<br \/>\nin the year 1979. Registration number of the<br \/>\npetitioner was 9959 and priority number was 9592. On<br \/>\n18th February, 1991, the petitioner was allotted MIG<br \/>\nFlat No. 10, Block B, Pocket-5, Sector 15, Rohini on<br \/>\ncash down basis. The petitioner did not receive the<br \/>\nallotment-cum-demand letter. However, on 9.5.1991,<br \/>\nthe petitioner learnt that the said flat had been<br \/>\nallotted to Kanwar Bhan Malik when he received the<br \/>\nnotice from the Court in CW 1509\/91. This Court vide<br \/>\norder dated 7.5.1991 had directed the DDA to maintain<br \/>\nstatus quo in respect of the flat in question. On<br \/>\n21st August, 1991, the petitioner made a<br \/>\nrepresentation to the DDA asking it to settle the case<br \/>\nwith the earlier allottee before issuance of demand<br \/>\nletter to him in respect of flat in question. Despite<br \/>\nrepresentation of petitioner, the respondent\/DDA<br \/>\nissued an allotment-cum\/demand letter in favor of the<br \/>\npetitioner on 24.9.1991 in respect of flat in<br \/>\nquestion. The petitioner was asked to make payment of<br \/>\nRs. 379142.24 on or before 23.12.1991 failing which the<br \/>\nallotment would be cancelled. On 3.10.1991, the<br \/>\npetitioner made another representation to the DDA<br \/>\npointing out that he was not liable to make payment of<br \/>\nthe demand and he would deposit the money after<br \/>\ngetting confirmation that the dispute regarding the<br \/>\nflat in question had been decided in favor of DDA.<br \/>\nOn 7th December, 1991 and 20.12.1991, two more<br \/>\nrepresentations were made by the petitioner. On<br \/>\n21.1.1992, the respondent\/DDA issued a show cause<br \/>\nnotice to the petitioner asking him to show cause,<br \/>\nwithin 15 days, as to why allotment of flat in question<br \/>\nin his favor be not cancelled. According to the<br \/>\npetitioner, the said letter was actually posted on<br \/>\n21.2.1992. On 26th February, 1992, the petitioner<br \/>\nresponded to the show cause notice. The petitioner<br \/>\nmade three more representations to respondent\/DDA on<br \/>\n4.10.1992, 26.3.1993 and 9.11.1993. The<br \/>\nrespondent\/DDA confirmed that the case regarding flat<br \/>\nin question was pending in the Court and as soon as a<br \/>\ndecision was taken, the petitioner would be informed.<br \/>\nDuring the period from 26.11.1993 to 18.7.1996, the<br \/>\npetitioner made 8 more representations to the<br \/>\nrespondent but to no avail. During this period, the<br \/>\nrespondent\/DDA gave possession of the flat in question<br \/>\nto Mr. Kanwar Bhan Malik but did not allot a suitable<br \/>\nalternative flat to the petitioner. On 25.10.1996,<br \/>\nthe petitioner filed a complete against respondent\/DDA<br \/>\nbefore the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-II, Delhi<br \/>\npraying for directing to DDA to give him possession of<br \/>\nan MIG flat in Rohini having parity in all respect of<br \/>\nthe flat which was allotted to him in the draw of lots<br \/>\nin February, 1991 and also pay compensation amounting<br \/>\nto Rs. 4 lakhs. Notice was issued to the<br \/>\nrespondent\/DDA. The respondent\/DDA filed the reply on<br \/>\n10.7.1998. The DDA admitted that the possession of<br \/>\nflat in question had been handed over to Mr. Kanwar<br \/>\nBhan Malik. The case of the plaintiff for allotment<br \/>\nof an alternative flat was under consideration and<br \/>\nallotment would be made in due course. However, the<br \/>\npetitioner withdrew the complaint on the objection<br \/>\nraised by the DDA with regard to jurisdiction and<br \/>\nmaintainability. The complaint was dismissed as<br \/>\nwithdrawn. Hence the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. Notice was issued to respondent\/DDA by order<br \/>\ndated 12th October, 2000. Interim order as also<br \/>\npassed directing the respondent\/DDA not to allot flat<br \/>\nNo. 38, Block-C, Pocket-B, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi to<br \/>\nanyone else except the petitioner, if not already<br \/>\nallotted. The respondent\/DDA in its counter affidavit<br \/>\nadmitted that the petitioner was allotted a flat<br \/>\nNo. 10, Block-D, Pocket-5, Rohini through draw of lots<br \/>\nheld on 18.2.1991. Demand letter was issued to him on<br \/>\nthe block dates of 20.9.1991-24.9.1991. the<br \/>\npetitioner was required to pay the amount latest by<br \/>\n23.12.1991. It was stipulated in the letter that if<br \/>\nthe demanded amounts were not paid by 23.12.1991, the<br \/>\nallotment would be cancelled automatically. The<br \/>\npetitioner failed to comply with the instructions<br \/>\ncontained in the allotment-cum-demand letter. Show<br \/>\ncause notice was issued to him. Despite show cause<br \/>\nnotice having been issued to the petitioner, he failed<br \/>\nto comply with the instructions contained in the<br \/>\ndemand letter. Thus, allotment was cancelled. The<br \/>\ncase of the petitioner did not fall under the category<br \/>\nof double allotment. Status quo was directed by this<br \/>\nCourt in respect of flat No. D-5\/10, Sector-15, Rohini<br \/>\nand not for flat No. 10, Pocket-5, Block-B, Sector-5,<br \/>\nRohini. The petition filed by Kanwar Bhan Malik was<br \/>\ndismissed in default on 19.2.1996. The petitioner has<br \/>\napproached this Court after 9 years of cancellation of<br \/>\nthe flat and the petition being highly belated is<br \/>\nliable to be dismissed on the grounds of latches.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. In rebuttal of the averments made in the<br \/>\ncounter affidavit, the petitioner in his rejoinder<br \/>\nstated that since the respondent\/DDA was not in a<br \/>\nposition to give possession of the flat in question to<br \/>\nthe petitioner, therefore, petitioner did not made<br \/>\npayments. Reliance is placed on Resolution No. 144\/93<br \/>\nof respondent\/DDA, annexure P-13 to the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. I have heard learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner, perused the pleadings and considered the<br \/>\ndocuments on record. There is no appearance on behalf<br \/>\nof respondent\/DDA.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. The petitioner has placed reliance on the<br \/>\njudgments of this Court in  Subhash Chander Chadha v.<br \/>\nDDA 72 (1998) DLT 413 and  Dutt Raj Gupta v. DDA CW<br \/>\n587\/95 decided on 31.1.1997 wherein this Court in<br \/>\nsimilar circumstances directed the respondent\/DDA to<br \/>\nallot the flats to the petitioners on the same terms<br \/>\nand conditions and at the same costs at which the<br \/>\nearlier flat in the same area was allotted to them.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. The DDA in the precis dated 16.11.1993<br \/>\ndetermined the scope of term of double allotment. The<br \/>\nrelevant portions of the same read as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;The terms double allotment signifies a<br \/>\nsituation where one flat is allotted to two<br \/>\ndifferent registrants either inadvertently or<br \/>\ndue to inefficiency or corruption in the<br \/>\nallotment process. It takes place because of<br \/>\nincomplete property records and lack of<br \/>\ncoordination between various branches of the<br \/>\nmanagement wing. The process of allotment of a<br \/>\nspecific flat involves conduct of a draw by<br \/>\ncomputer on the basis of information about<br \/>\nvacant flats made available to it by the<br \/>\nmanagement wing. This information is fed into<br \/>\nthe computer by verifying the property registers<br \/>\nwhich contains information about all the flats<br \/>\nmade available to management wing by the<br \/>\nengineering wing after their completion. The<br \/>\nmanagement wing is supposed to keep it updated<br \/>\nby filling details of allotment and possession.<br \/>\nIf property register is not updated there is<br \/>\nevery probability that a flat which is already<br \/>\nallotted and where possession has also been<br \/>\ntaken over, would be shown as vacant and this is<br \/>\nfed into the computer at the time of draw. It<br \/>\nwould again allotted to another registrant<br \/>\ncausing double allotment. The cases of double<br \/>\nallotment take place only because a flat which<br \/>\nis allotted is shown as vacant and fit for<br \/>\nallotment by the management wing of the Housing<br \/>\nDepartment. Such wrong information can be fed<br \/>\nto the computer either inadvertently or<br \/>\ndeliberately by a corrupt official for harassing<br \/>\nregistrants. Whatever may be the case the<br \/>\nregistrant is not at fault and responsibility of<br \/>\ndouble allotment solely lies with the DDA.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. Perusal of the allotment letters issued to<br \/>\nthe petitioner and Mr. Kanwar Bhan Malik shows that<br \/>\nallotment was made to them in respect of flat No. 10,<br \/>\nPocket-5, Block-D, Sector-15, Rohini. The allotment<br \/>\nof said flat was made in favor of Mr. Kanwar Bhan on<br \/>\n23-27.04.90 whereas the allotment in favor of<br \/>\npetitioner was made on 20-24.9.1991. It appears that<br \/>\nallotment of the Kanwar Bhan was cancelled and the<br \/>\nsaid flat was allotted to the petitioner later on.<br \/>\nAggrieved by cancellation, Kanwar Bhan filed a writ<br \/>\npetition in this Court and this Court passed an<br \/>\ninterim order in his favor on 7.5.1991 with regard to<br \/>\nthe flat which was allotted to him. In light of the<br \/>\nsame, the plea raised by the respondent\/DDA in its<br \/>\naffidavit that there was no stay with regard to flat<br \/>\nin question cannot be sustained moreso, the<br \/>\nrespondent\/DDA in its reply before the Consumer<br \/>\nDisputes Redressal Forum admitted that flat in<br \/>\nquestion was subjudice and possession of flat in<br \/>\nquestion was issued in favor of Mr. Kanwar Bhan<br \/>\nMalik as per directions of the courts.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. The petitioner from the very beginning<br \/>\ninformed the respondent\/DDA in writing that the matter<br \/>\npertaining to the flat allotted to him in the draw of<br \/>\nlots held on 18.2.1991 was sub-judice and requested<br \/>\nthe respondent\/DDA to settle the issue with the<br \/>\npetitioner in CW 1509\/91. However, the respondent\/DDA<br \/>\nissued a demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner<br \/>\nin respect of flat in question requiring him to<br \/>\ndeposit the amount demanded within the specified<br \/>\nperiod. By letter dated 7.12.1991, the petitioner<br \/>\nrequested the DDA that outcome of the petition be<br \/>\ninformed to him in order to make payment in terms of<br \/>\ndemand letter. By letter dated 19.12.1991, the<br \/>\npetitioner again wrote a letter to the DDA to the<br \/>\neffect that money would be deposited only after<br \/>\ngetting confirmation that the petition filed by Kanwar<br \/>\nBhan Malik has been decided and the allotment of flat<br \/>\nin question was no more stand in the name of Kanwar<br \/>\nBhan. Since the title of the flat was not clear, the<br \/>\npetitioner did not deposit the amount. Despite the<br \/>\nfact that matter pertaining to flat in question was<br \/>\nsub-judice, the respondent\/DDA issued a show cause<br \/>\nnotice to the petitioner on 21.1.1992 asking him to<br \/>\nshow cause, within 15 days as to why allotment of flat<br \/>\nin question in his favor be not cancelled and<br \/>\ncancelled the allotment in favor of the petitioner<br \/>\nthereafter. This act of the respondent\/DDA was not<br \/>\njustified for the reasons that respondent\/DDA despite<br \/>\nhaving knowledge that the matter pertaining to flat in<br \/>\nquestion was sub-judice issued a show cause notice to<br \/>\nthe petitioner and cancelled the flat thereafter. The<br \/>\npetitioner was not at fault in not making the payment<br \/>\nas he already informed the respondent\/DDA that matter<br \/>\npertaining to flat in question was sub-judice and he<br \/>\nwould deposit the amount after outcome of the decision<br \/>\nof the court case. The respondent\/DDA ought to have<br \/>\nallotted another flat to the petitioner or in the<br \/>\nalternative deferred the demand. The respondent\/DDA<br \/>\nfailed to do so. It is admitted by the respondent\/DDA<br \/>\nin the reply filed before the Consumer Forum that as<br \/>\nper orders of Court, the possession of flat in<br \/>\nquestion was given to Mr. Kanwar Bhan Malik. In<br \/>\nlight of this admission, it is clear that the<br \/>\nrespondent\/DDA made an allotment of a flat which was<br \/>\nin dispute and the offer to the plaintiff was no offer<br \/>\nin the eyes of law. The plea of the respondent\/DDA<br \/>\nthat petition is barred by time is also not<br \/>\nsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the<br \/>\ncase. Moreover the petitioner was compelled to<br \/>\napproach the consumer forum where DDA made admissions<br \/>\nsupporting the case of the petitioner. Possession of<br \/>\nthe flat was handed over the Mr. Kanwar Bhan Malik.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. In light of the above discussion, the<br \/>\npetition is allowed. The respondent\/DDA is directed<br \/>\nto allot flat No. 38, Block-C, Pocket-C, Sector-8,<br \/>\nRohini, Delhi to the petitioner on the same terms and<br \/>\nconditions and at the same cost at which the earlier<br \/>\nflat was allotted to him. If the said flat is<br \/>\nallotted to some other person, the respondent\/DDA<br \/>\nshall allot another flat to the petitioner in the same<br \/>\nlocality\/zone on the terms stated above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 2002 Equivalent citations: 102 (2003) DLT 782 Author: C Mahajan Bench: C Mahajan JUDGMENT C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of allotment of flat No. 10, Block B, Pocket-5, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi in favor of [&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-172567","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>Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 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\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-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=\"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-30T23:55:36+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T23:55:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1987,\"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\\\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002\",\"name\":\"Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T23:55:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 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":"Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 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\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-30T23:55:36+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T23:55:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002"},"wordCount":1987,"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\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002","name":"Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T23:55:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-dixit-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranjit Dixit vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 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\/172567","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=172567"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172567\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}