{"id":205156,"date":"2010-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-06T08:21:56","modified_gmt":"2018-10-06T02:51:56","slug":"delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Indermeet Kaur<\/div>\n
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                               Date of Judgment : 20.07.2010\n\n                         R.S.A. No. 78\/1991\n\n+      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n                              ...........Appellant\n                Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate.\n\n                    Versus\n\n       SMT. PRAKASH MALIK\n                                     ..........Respondents<\/pre>\n
                    Through:    Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate
\n                                with Mr. Tanuj Khurana, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
CORAM:\n<\/p>\n
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR<\/p>\n
     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
\n        see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n
     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                 Yes<\/p>\n
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n<\/p>\n
                                                               Yes<\/p>\n
INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)<\/p>\n
1.     This   appeal   has   been   directed   against   the   impugned<\/p>\n
judgment dated 6.07.1991 passed by the first appellate court<\/p>\n
endorsing the finding of the trial judge dated 12.10.1989, wherein<\/p>\n
the suit of the plaintiff namely, Prakash Malik, for injunction had<\/p>\n
been decreed in her favour.           The defendant\/DDA had been<\/p>\n
restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff- Prakash Malik from the<\/p>\n
suit property.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Briefly stated the facts of the case are that:<\/p>\n
       (i) Plot no. B-1\/16, Safdarjung Residential Scheme was<\/p>\n
       purchased by the plaintiff at a bid mount of Rs. 15,100\/- in an<\/p>\n
       open auction on 08.02.1964.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (ii) The lease deed was executed on 24.11.1967 and<\/p>\n
       possession was handed over to the plaintiff on the same date.<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 78\/1991                                              Page 1 of 6<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (iii) On 13.1.1983, the defendant noticed that the premises<\/p>\n
       were being misused by the lessee by running an inn namely<\/p>\n
       “Ashok Inn” which was in contravention in terms of the lease.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (iv) Show cause notices dated 08.03.1983, 07.04.1983 and<\/p>\n
       23.05.1983 were issued to the plaintiff\/lessee to show cause<\/p>\n
       as to why the lease be not determined.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (v) On 24.04.1983, the lessee vide her communication of even<\/p>\n
       date reported that she had taken on paying guests to<\/p>\n
       compensate her earnings.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (vi) The lessee was given an opportunity to remove the mis-<\/p>\n
       user but she did not adhere to this.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (vii) On 06.10.1983, the LG determined the lease of the<\/p>\n
       plaintiff\/lessee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.     The plaintiff had filed a suit for perpetual injunction seeking<\/p>\n
a restrain order against the Delhi Development Authority from<\/p>\n
dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. The trial judge<\/p>\n
had framed four issues. While dealing with Issue no. 1 and 2, the<\/p>\n
trial court concluded that the running of a guest house did not<\/p>\n
amount to a commercial housing; not being a commercial activity,<\/p>\n
there was no violation of Clause 13 of the lease deed.              The<\/p>\n
cancellation of the lease deed by the LG was illegal.<\/p>\n
4.     This finding of the trial judge was endorsed and confirmed by<\/p>\n
the appellate court vide its impugned judgment dated 06.07.1991.<\/p>\n
The appellate court relied upon two judgments i.e. Baba Holiday<\/p>\n
Home Vs. DDA reported in 1981 (RLR) Note 99 as also Ramunja<\/p>\n
Vs. Ajit Singh reported as AIR 1978 Delhi 286.<\/p>\n
5.     On 22.11.1991, the appeal was admitted and the substantial<\/p>\n
question of law was framed as under:\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 78\/1991                                           Page 2 of 6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
               “As to whether the user as an Inn of the premises, built on a plot
\n              which is the subject matter of lease in favour of the owner with
\n              restrictive Clause to the effect that the premises were not to be
\n              used or permitted to be used for any trade or business whatsoever
\n              or for any purposes other than that of private dwelling, is or not
\n              violative of the terms of the lease deed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.     On behalf of the appellant, the counsel for the DDA has<\/p>\n
submitted that the judgments on which reliance had been placed<\/p>\n
upon by the first appellate court since stand over ruled. Reliance<\/p>\n
has been placed on DRJ 1992 (23) Delhi Development Authority Vs.<\/p>\n
M\/s Maharaja Hotel and Others wherein this court had held that<\/p>\n
the question whether the running of a guest house is a non-<\/p>\n
confirming user or not stood settled by the Division Bench<\/p>\n
Judgment of this court in the judgment reported as 38 (1989) DLT<\/p>\n
357     A.N. Shervani and another Vs. Lt. Governor & Others.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon<\/p>\n
106 (2003) DLT 445 R.K. Khanna Vs. NDMC and (2000) 2 SCC 494<\/p>\n
NDMC Vs. Sohan Lal Sachdev.                 It is submitted that in this<\/p>\n
judgment, the words “commercial” and “domestic” came up for<\/p>\n
interpretation. Reliance has also been placed upon 1966 8 SSC 27<\/p>\n
NDMC Vs. Mafatlal Industries and Others to support the<\/p>\n
submission that words and phrases should be ascribed their plain<\/p>\n
meaning unless the context otherwise prescribes. It is submitted<\/p>\n
that in this case, the lease deed has specifically mentioned that the<\/p>\n
disputed property is for “private residential use” and the word<\/p>\n
“private” cannot be over looked; it has to be given its due meaning.<\/p>\n
It is submitted that in the judgment of the Chancery Division<\/p>\n
reported in 1808 H. 168Hobson Vs. Tulloch, the use of the words<\/p>\n
“private residence” has been expounded. In this case, a covenant<\/p>\n
not to use the house “for any trade or manufacture, of for any other<\/p>\n
purpose than a private residence” was held broken by using it as a<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 78\/1991                                                    Page 3 of 6<\/span>
\n boarding-     house   for   scholars   attending   a   school     in    the<\/p>\n
neighbourhood; such a user had practically converted the house<\/p>\n
from a “private residence” to a business of a boarding house.<\/p>\n
7.     These submissions have been countered by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents. Reliance has been placed upon the<\/p>\n
judgment of this court in WP ( C ) No. 2004\/1997 titled as Sh.<\/p>\n
Vikramjit Kapoor Vs. Union of India. It is stated that in this case<\/p>\n
the question of the user of a residential plot as a guest house which<\/p>\n
as per the terms of the lease was to be used for a residential<\/p>\n
purposes only had been raised.         The DDA had claimed misuser<\/p>\n
charges w.e.f. 25.07.1989. The MPD-2001 had been promulgated<\/p>\n
w.e.f. 01.08.1990.    In view thereof relying upon the judgment of<\/p>\n
this court reported in 2003      III AD (Delhi) 634, Ashwani Kumar<\/p>\n
Khanna Vs. DDA, the court had directed the DDA to consider the<\/p>\n
conversion application filed by the petitioner seeking conversion of<\/p>\n
his leasehold property to a freehold with a further direction that<\/p>\n
the misuser charges raised by the DDA stood quashed.                   This<\/p>\n
judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case as in this case,<\/p>\n
admittedly, the misuser charges are being claimed much prior to<\/p>\n
the MPD-2001 having come into force i.e. w.e.f. 13.01.1983.<\/p>\n
8.     The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that<\/p>\n
the petitioner had also preferred CWP No. 2139\/1993 seeking a<\/p>\n
mandamus that a perpetual lease deed dated 24.11.1967 in respect<\/p>\n
of this residential plot i.e. plot bearing no. B-1\/16, Safdarjung<\/p>\n
residential scheme be converted from leasehold into a freehold.<\/p>\n
This request of the petitioner had been declined by the DDA on the<\/p>\n
ground that there was a misuse in the property and the lease had<\/p>\n
stood cancelled. After hearing the parties as also keeping in view<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 78\/1991                                               Page 4 of 6<\/span>
\n the fact that at that time the present RSA No. 78\/1991 had been<\/p>\n
dismissed on 14.07.2003 (thereafter it was restored); accordingly<\/p>\n
writ of mandamus was issued to the department\/DDA to process<\/p>\n
the application of the petitioner for conversion of her leasehold plot<\/p>\n
into freehold within a period of three months.<\/p>\n
9.     Since the department had not complied with this direction, a<\/p>\n
contempt petition i.e. the contempt case (c) 663\/2003 had been<\/p>\n
filed by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
10.    On 17.02.2004, directions were given in this contempt<\/p>\n
petition which inter alia reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
              “It is further stated that amount of damages are liable to be paid
\n              by the petitioner only in case the respondent succeeds in the RSA
\n              and subject to the right of the petitioner to dispute the
\n              quantification of the same”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.    On   10.03.2007,      further     directions    were     given     in    this<\/p>\n
contempt petition which inter alia reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
              “Thus, in my considered view, restoration charges are not liable to
\n              be paid at this stage, but in case the respondent ultimately
\n              succeeds in RSA, these charges would be liable to be paid by the
\n              petitioner and this is acceptable to the petitioner. Needless to say,
\n              this will be subject to any further remedy as available in law to the
\n              parties to impugn the decision in the RSA”.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
12.    Further direction had been given to the DDA that the<\/p>\n
document with regard to the conversion of the lease hold property<\/p>\n
into free hold be executed within one month.\n<\/p>\n
13.    On 26.05.2004, the conveyance deed for the said property<\/p>\n
had been executed by the DDA in favour of the petitioner whereby<\/p>\n
the disputed property stood converted from leasehold into free<\/p>\n
hold. These factual submissions are not disputed.<\/p>\n
14.    Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in<\/p>\n
this scenario when the property already stands converted from<\/p>\n
leasehold into freehold, the question of the dispossession of the<\/p>\n
petitioner from the said property does not arise and even
\nR.S.A No. 78\/1991                                                       Page 5 of 6<\/span>
\n presuming there are any misuse charges liable to be paid by the<\/p>\n
respondent\/Prakash Malik, in terms of the orders of this court<\/p>\n
dated 17.02.2004 and 10.03.2004 passed in contempt case ( C )<\/p>\n
663\/2003, the respondent is at liberty to dispute the quantification<\/p>\n
of the same. The respondent, at this stage, had conceded that<\/p>\n
there has been the misuse of the disputed premises. This was first<\/p>\n
noticed on 13.1.1983 i.e. the date when the inspection of the<\/p>\n
property was conducted and it came to the notice of the<\/p>\n
department that the premises were being misused by the lessee by<\/p>\n
running an inn namely “Ashoka Inn” which was in contravention in<\/p>\n
terms of the lease.\n<\/p>\n
       Respondent, however, seeks liberty of this court to file his<\/p>\n
objections before the DDA as and when the misuser charges are<\/p>\n
raised upon him.\n<\/p>\n
15.    The substantial question of law which had been formulated<\/p>\n
on 22.11.1991 is accordingly answered as under:-<\/p>\n
              “The respondent\/plaintiff Prakash Malik had contravened the
\n              terms of the lease deed dated 24.11.1961 by misusing it in terms
\n              of running an inn namely “Ashoka Inn” which was in
\n              contraventions of the terms of the lease.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
16.    The legal consequences which flow from this answer may be<\/p>\n
taken recourse too by the appellant\/DDA with the right of the<\/p>\n
respondent to raise objections on the quantification of the demand<\/p>\n
of misuse as and when raised by the appellant.<\/p>\n
17.    With these directions, this appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n
                                                INDERMEET KAUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
July 20, 2010
\nss<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 78\/1991                                                   Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010 Author: Indermeet Kaur * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment : 20.07.2010 R.S.A. No. 78\/1991 + DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ………..Appellant Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate. Versus SMT. PRAKASH MALIK ……….Respondents Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, […]<\/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-205156","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010 - 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\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-06T02:51:56+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\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-06T02:51:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1664,\"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\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-06T02:51:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010 - 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\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-06T02:51:56+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\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-06T02:51:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010"},"wordCount":1664,"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\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010","name":"Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-06T02:51:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-smt-prakash-malik-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/205156","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=205156"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205156\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205156"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}