{"id":194185,"date":"2011-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-09-09T13:52:37","modified_gmt":"2016-09-09T08:22:37","slug":"smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw<\/div>\n
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                                         Date of decision: 9th September, 2011.\n\n+                                  W.P.(C) 2875\/2003\n\n%      PREM KUMAR & ORS.                                       ..... Petitioners\n                  Through:                Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv.\n\n                                   Versus\n\n       LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS          .... Respondents\n                   Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. for\n                             R-1 & 6 GNCTD.\n                             Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for\n                             R-2 & 3.\n                             Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Adv. for R-5.\n                             Mr. Pankaj Batra, Adv.\n                                       AND\n+                               W.P.(C) 24759-65\/2005\n\n%      SMT. KRISHNA BHALLA & ORS.                 ..... Petitioners\n                    Through: Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv.\n\n                                   Versus\n\n       DDA & ANR                                              ..... Respondents\n                            Through:      Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA.\nCORAM :-\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW\n1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may          Not necessary\n       be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n\nW.P.(C) No.2875\/2003 & W.P.(C) No.24759-65\/2005                       Page 1 of 9\n 2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?             Not necessary\n\n3.     Whether the judgment should be reported            Not necessary\n       in the Digest?\n\nRAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.     W.P.(C) No.2875\/2003 was filed impugning the order dated 7 th April,<\/p>\n
2003 of the respondent DDA of demolition and sealing of the properties of<\/p>\n
the 12 petitioners in Village-Mahipalpur, Delhi. The respondent DDA had<\/p>\n
exercised such jurisdiction under Section 30(1) and Section 31A of the Delhi<\/p>\n
Development Act, 1957 claiming the properties of the petitioners to be<\/p>\n
falling in Development Area 176 of DDA. It was however the claim of the<\/p>\n
petitioners that their properties fall on Khasra Nos.723\/2, 733\/2 and 734\/2 in<\/p>\n
Village-Mahipalpur and Village-Mahipalpur does not fall in Development<\/p>\n
Area 176 and thus respondent DDA had no jurisdiction to issue such orders.<\/p>\n
2.     The Commissioner (Land Management), DDA has in the impugned<\/p>\n
order held that Development Area has no relation with the revenue estate<\/p>\n
and since the properties of the petitioners fell in Development Area 176,<\/p>\n
DDA was empowered to exercise powers with respect thereto. It was further<\/p>\n
held that a part of Village-Mahipalpur fell in the said Development Area and<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2875\/2003 & W.P.(C) No.24759-65\/2005                     Page 2 of 9<\/span>
\n the properties of the petitioners fell in the said part and hence DDA was\/is<\/p>\n
entitled to exercise powers with respect thereto.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.     It is not in dispute that so far as the order of sealing of the properties is<\/p>\n
concerned, the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India AIR 2006<\/p>\n
SC 1325, reaffirming the Full Bench of this Court in Bajaj Departmental<\/p>\n
Store Vs. MCD AIR 2002 Del. 520 held that DDA does not have the power<\/p>\n
of sealing on account of misuser. Thus the challenge is concerned with<\/p>\n
order of demolition only and to the order of sealing only if on account of<\/p>\n
unauthorized construction or unauthorized development.                In fact the<\/p>\n
impugned order dated 7th April, 2003 came to be made in pursuance to the<\/p>\n
order dated 23rd September, 2002 in Civil Writ Petition No.6041\/2002<\/p>\n
earlier preferred by the petitioners, remanding the matter to the DDA for<\/p>\n
disposal after hearing the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.     It is not in dispute that the order of the DDA impugned in this petition<\/p>\n
is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal. The said fact was within the<\/p>\n
knowledge of the petitioners also, as appears from the very first order dated<\/p>\n
30th April, 2003 in W.P.(C) No.2875\/2003. It was however the contention of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2875\/2003 & W.P.(C) No.24759-65\/2005                          Page 3 of 9<\/span>
\n the petitioners on that date that their challenge to the order dated 7 th April,<\/p>\n
2003 was confined only to the plea that their properties were not situated in<\/p>\n
Development Area 176 and they were not pressing any other ground against<\/p>\n
the order dated 7th April, 2003. Notice to show cause was issued limited to<\/p>\n
the aforesaid argument.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.     Pleadings have been completed. The counsel for the respondent DDA<\/p>\n
has at the outset invited attention to the order dated 14 th January, 2011 when<\/p>\n
the counsel for the petitioners has taken time to take instructions whether the<\/p>\n
petitioners are willing to avail of the remedy of appeal.<\/p>\n
6.     The counsel for the petitioners today, on the basis of various<\/p>\n
documents on record has argued that the respondent DDA has failed to<\/p>\n
satisfy this Court that the properties of the petitioners are situated in<\/p>\n
Development Area 176. It is contended that certain other persons with<\/p>\n
respect to whose properties, also purportedly in the aforesaid area, similar<\/p>\n
order was made, had approached the Appellate Tribunal and which appeals<\/p>\n
were also allowed holding that there is nothing to show that the area was a<\/p>\n
Development Area.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2875\/2003 & W.P.(C) No.24759-65\/2005                      Page 4 of 9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 7.     Per contra, the counsels for the respondent DDA have contended that<\/p>\n
it was only after hearing on 14th January, 2011 that the petitioners had<\/p>\n
sought time to decide whether to prefer an appeal and now on change of<\/p>\n
roster the matter is being re-argued. They have also controverted that the<\/p>\n
petitioners are similarly placed as the persons whose appeals were allowed<\/p>\n
by the Tribunal. The counsels for the respondent DDA refer to various<\/p>\n
documents to show that the properties of the petitioners are in fact a part of<\/p>\n
Development Area.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.     Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. also a Standing Counsel for DDA and who<\/p>\n
happens to be present in court also informs that there are several other<\/p>\n
litigations of village-Mahipalpur and orders with respect to several<\/p>\n
properties in the said area have also been passed by the Monitoring<\/p>\n
Committee appointed by the Supreme Court and by the Division Bench of<\/p>\n
this Court, also proceeding on the premise that the said area is a<\/p>\n
Development Area of the DDA.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.     After considering the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that there is any unambiguous material before this Court on<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2875\/2003 & W.P.(C) No.24759-65\/2005                     Page 5 of 9<\/span>
\n the basis whereof it can be said whether the properties of the petitioners are<\/p>\n
in a Development Area or not. The matter requires detailed investigation<\/p>\n
and in the face of alternative remedy where the said exercise can be<\/p>\n
undertaken being available, need is not felt to entertain the petition.<\/p>\n
10.    The counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the petitions<\/p>\n
have remained pending for the last 8 years, this Court may adjudicate the<\/p>\n
controversy.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.    It is apparent from the order dated 30th April, 2003 that the petitioners<\/p>\n
took a calculated risk. Merely because a notice to show cause was issued,<\/p>\n
does not compel this Court to entertain the petition. In the light of what has<\/p>\n
transpired above, no case for bypassing the alternative remedy provided is<\/p>\n
made out. If the petitioners, on the date of filing of petitions were not<\/p>\n
entitled to maintain the petition for the reason of availability of alternative<\/p>\n
remedy, merely because they have been successful and in keeping the same<\/p>\n
pending in this Court for 8 years would not vest any right in the petitioners<\/p>\n
to have the petition entertained by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2875\/2003 & W.P.(C) No.24759-65\/2005                       Page 6 of 9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 12.    The counsel for the petitioners seeks extension of interim protection<\/p>\n
which the petitioners have enjoyed till now, to enable the petitioners to avail<\/p>\n
of the alternative remedy. It is further stated that the petitioners be also<\/p>\n
relieved of their statement supra of not pressing any other challenge to the<\/p>\n
order dated 7th April, 2003.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.    The counsels for the respondent DDA oppose the aforesaid request.<\/p>\n
14.    In my view the petitioners having given up the other challenge if any<\/p>\n
to the order dated 7th April, 2003 and having confined the challenge to the<\/p>\n
order only on the aspect of the properties being not falling in Development<\/p>\n
Area cannot now be permitted to revive the other grounds of challenge if<\/p>\n
any. As aforesaid, the objection as to the maintainability of the petitions was<\/p>\n
considered on the very threshold and the petitioners cannot be permitted to<\/p>\n
approbate and reprobate. However since nevertheless the petitions remained<\/p>\n
pending in this Court, it is deemed appropriate to extend the protection<\/p>\n
enjoyed by the petitioners till now, to enable the petitioners to avail the<\/p>\n
alternative remedy.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2875\/2003 & W.P.(C) No.24759-65\/2005                      Page 7 of 9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 15.    The counsels state that the position in W.P.(C) No.24759-65\/2005 is<\/p>\n
the same.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.    The counsel for the petitioners at this stage states that applications for<\/p>\n
substitution of legal heirs are pending in W.P.(C) No.2875\/2003.<\/p>\n
17.    The counsels for the respondents have been heard on the said<\/p>\n
applications.    The delay in filing the applications for substitution is<\/p>\n
condoned and the substitution is permitted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.    In view of the aforesaid, the petitions are dismissed as not<\/p>\n
maintainable for the reason of the alternative remedy of appeal to the<\/p>\n
Tribunal being available to the petitioners and with liberty to avail the<\/p>\n
alternative remedy. Since notice to show cause was issued and the petitions<\/p>\n
have remained pending in this Court, it is further directed that subject to the<\/p>\n
appeal being preferred within four weeks of today, the same shall be<\/p>\n
entertained without objection on the plea of limitation. It is further directed<\/p>\n
that till the disposal of the applications for interim relief and\/or of the<\/p>\n
appeal, the interim protection which the petitioners have enjoyed in this<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2875\/2003 & W.P.(C) No.24759-65\/2005                       Page 8 of 9<\/span>
\n petition shall continue, subject to the petitioners not making any changes<\/p>\n
whatsoever in the properties and not transferring, encumbering or parting<\/p>\n
with possession thereof. It is clarified that any observation made herein<\/p>\n
would not prejudice the case of any of the parties before the Appellate<\/p>\n
Tribunal.    The matter having already remained pending for long, the<\/p>\n
Appellate Tribunal is requested to dispose of the same expeditiously.<\/p>\n
       Copy of this order be given Dasti.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
\n                                                         (JUDGE)
\nSEPTEMBER 09, 2011
\nbs<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.2875\/2003 & W.P.(C) No.24759-65\/2005                    Page 9 of 9<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011 Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 9th September, 2011. + W.P.(C) 2875\/2003 % PREM KUMAR & ORS. ….. Petitioners Through: Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. Versus LT. GOVERNOR, NCT […]<\/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-194185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-09T08:22:37+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-09T08:22:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1469,\"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\\\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-09T08:22:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-09T08:22:37+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-09T08:22:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011"},"wordCount":1469,"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\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011","name":"Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-09T08:22:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-krishna-bhalla-ors-vs-dda-anr-on-9-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Krishna Bhalla & Ors. vs Dda & Anr on 9 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/194185","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=194185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194185\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}