{"id":230889,"date":"2009-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2"},"modified":"2018-09-20T17:11:55","modified_gmt":"2018-09-20T11:41:55","slug":"shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                      Central Information Commission\n                                    *****\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                                      No.CIC\/OK\/A\/2007\/00033<\/p>\n<p>                                                       Dated: 22 January 2009<\/p>\n<p>Name of the Complainant           :      Shri V.M. Thareja<br \/>\n                                         GG-111\/30, Vikas Puri<br \/>\n                                         New Delhi-110018<\/p>\n<p>Name of the Public Authority      :      Delhi Development Authority<\/p>\n<p>Background:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shri V.M. Thareja of New Delhi filed an RTI-application with the Public<br \/>\nInformation Officer, Delhi Development Authority, on 31 July 2006, seeking<br \/>\ninformation regarding the distance criteria between the H.S. School (Oxford<br \/>\nPublic School) Bodella Village and the Outer Ring Road as per the DDA scale and<br \/>\nwhether the Tot-lot land mentioned in the blue print of Bodella Residential<br \/>\nScheme was included in the Group Housing Scheme Plots. The PIO vide his<br \/>\nletter dated 20 September 2006 replied to the RTI-application.          In the<br \/>\nmeanwhile, the Appellant on not getting any reply within the stipulated period<br \/>\nof 30 days, filed an appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 19 September<br \/>\nand thereafter approached the Central Information Commission with a Second<br \/>\nAppeal on 9 January 2007.      The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information<br \/>\nCommissioner, heard the matter on 17 May 2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    During the above hearing, the Appellants stated that they wanted two<br \/>\npieces of information: first the distance criteria between the Oxford Public<br \/>\nSchool, Village Bodella and the Outer Ring Road as per the DDA scale. The<br \/>\nRespondents stated that they had showed to the Appellants the plan of the<br \/>\narea. However, this distance was a part of the detailed plan which was not<br \/>\navailable with them. Actually, the Appellant said that they had themselves<br \/>\nmeasured this distance (836 meters approximately).       What the Appellants<br \/>\nwanted was an official confirmation of the fact. The Commission directed the<br \/>\nRespondents to measure this distance by scale on their map and confirm. The<br \/>\nsecond piece of information related to the Tot-lot land mentioned in the blue<br \/>\nprint of the Bodella Residential Scheme in Group Housing plots.            The<br \/>\nCommission directed the Respondents to make available to the Appellant the<br \/>\ninformation map showing the Tot-lot land in that Scheme. The Commission<br \/>\n further directed that the compliance of both these orders should be done by 15<br \/>\nMay 2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    Not satisfied with the information supplied by the PIO after the<br \/>\nCommission&#8217;s orders, the Appellant approached the Commission with a request<br \/>\nto hear the case again. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information<br \/>\nCommissioner, heard the matter on 7 May 2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    The Commission heard both the sides in a case which had not only been<br \/>\nheard earlier but action also had been taken on a complaint of non-compliance<br \/>\nof the Commission&#8217;s orders by the Respondents. However, it was obvious that<br \/>\nthe case was still not settled.   The issue related to the measurement of a<br \/>\ndistance between the Oxford School, Vikas Puri and the Outer Ring Road in the<br \/>\nfirst instance and the status of a Tot Lot area in the land allotted to a<br \/>\nCooperative Group Housing Society. During the hearing, the Appellant stated<br \/>\nthat in response to the Respondent&#8217;s letter, he had gone to the office to get<br \/>\nthe information but was treated very shabbily and in fact was even threatened.<br \/>\nHe stated that now he was even afraid of going there again. Under the<br \/>\ncircumstances, the Commission directed the Respondents to provide the<br \/>\ntechnical expertise to the Appellant who would bring his own technical hand<br \/>\nand the two technical persons would sit down and reconcile the two different<br \/>\npieces of data regarding the measurement of the distance as stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    During the hearing, the Appellant stated that in view of the behaviour of<br \/>\nthe officials concerned, he was now very hesitant to go to the office again and<br \/>\nwanted the Respondents to call them on the site as per their convenience so<br \/>\nthat this exercise could be carried on at the site itself. The Commission sees<br \/>\nno reason why this request of the Appellants should not be agreed to. (The<br \/>\nAppellant wanted their phone numbers to be included in the Order. These are<br \/>\n9818758484 &amp; 9811399540). The Commission ordered that this exercise should<br \/>\nbe completed by 5 June 2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    The Commission also warned the Respondents that in case this complaint<br \/>\nof misbehaviour on the part of them was repeated, the Commission it would be<br \/>\ntreated extremely severely and heavy penalties imposed upon the erring<br \/>\nofficials. After all, it was often seen that the Government Servants who were<br \/>\nalso called &#8216;Civil Servants&#8217; were anything but civil and the Commission saw no<br \/>\n reason grounds to doubt what the Appellant had stated. It was incumbent on<br \/>\nthe Public Authorities not only to disclose information but also to treat all RTI-<br \/>\napplicants with respect and consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    The Commission noted that as regards the status of the Tot-lot land in<br \/>\nthe area allotted to the Cooperative Group Housing Society, the Appellant<br \/>\nstated that he merely wanted a confirmation from the Respondents that<br \/>\nwhatever piece of land was allotted for the particular Group Housing Society<br \/>\ndid or did not contain the Tot-lot land, and the reasons why this land had been<br \/>\nallotted after the finalization of the Group Housing Society Scheme. He has<br \/>\nsought information on two Group Housing Societies, namely, Engineers India<br \/>\nGroup Housing Society and Gujranwala Cooperative Group Housing Society,<br \/>\nBodhela, Vikaspuri.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    During the hearing, the Respondents said that as far as the information<br \/>\nregarding the status of a Tot-lot land in the area allotted to Group Housing<br \/>\nSocieties was concerned, it would take them time to collect the information<br \/>\nfrom the Department of Land and Architect Wing. The Commission accepted<br \/>\nthe submission and granted them time upto 20 June 2008 to collect the<br \/>\ninformation and supply it to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.    The Appellant, however, approached the Commission again with a non-<br \/>\ncompliance of the Commission&#8217;s orders, and the Commission decided to hold<br \/>\nanother hearing in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the<br \/>\nmatter on 12 January 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   Shri R.K. Jain, Director (Plg), represented the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.   The Appellant, Shri V.M. Thareja, was represented by Shri G.L. Nagpaul<br \/>\nand Shri Devinder Singh.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>13.   The Commission heard both the sides and found that part of the<br \/>\ninformation had been provided to the Appellant.               According to the<br \/>\nRespondents, the part of information which could not be provided by them did<br \/>\n not pertain to their office but to the Building Department of the DDA who<br \/>\napproved the Cooperative Group Housing Layout Plan, and in this specific case,<br \/>\nEngineers India Group Housing Society and Gujranwala Cooperative Group<br \/>\nHousing Society, Bodhela, Vikaspuri.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.   The earlier Order of the Commission dated 29 May 2008 provided for the<br \/>\nAppellant to send a technical hand to the Respondent&#8217;s office and for the<br \/>\nRespondents to provide the technical expertise to the Appellant so that both<br \/>\nthe technical experts could jointly look into the documents and get the correct<br \/>\ninformation. This has not been done so far.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.   The Appellant has desired that the area specifications of both the sites,<br \/>\nthat is, Engineers India Group Housing Society and Gujranwala Cooperative<br \/>\nGroup Housing Society, Bodhela, Vikaspuri should be mentioned in detail giving<br \/>\nlength of each site.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.   Under the circumstances, the Commission now directs:               (i) the<br \/>\nRespondents to clarify the information received from the Department<br \/>\nmentioned above so that the Appellant does not have to run from office to<br \/>\noffice to get that information. It is only natural for a Section of that the same<br \/>\noffice to get the information which is under the custody of another Section in<br \/>\nthe same Department. This they should do by 17 February 2009; (ii) after this<br \/>\ndate, the Appellants will get in touch with the Respondent&#8217;s office to fix up a<br \/>\ndate when the two technical experts &#8211; one from the side of the Appellant and<br \/>\nthe other from the Respondents \u2015 to go over all the documents and to also<br \/>\nphysically visit the site so that the correct information is provided to the<br \/>\nAppellant; and (iii) in case of a dispute, the Appellant, after having the<br \/>\ncontradictory pieces of information, may approach the senior authorities in the<br \/>\nDDA for reconciliation of the difference.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                            Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                (O.P. Kejariwal)<br \/>\n                                                      Information Commissioner<br \/>\nAuthenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>(G. Subramanian)<br \/>\nAssistant Registrar<br \/>\n Cc:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      1.   Shri V.M. Thareja, GG-111\/30, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      2.   Shri Partho Dhar, Director (AP-I) &amp; PIO, Delhi Development Authority, 4th<br \/>\n           Floor, Vikas Minar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      3.   Shri A.K. Gupta, Addl. Commissioner (Planning) II &amp; Appellate Authority,<br \/>\n           Delhi Development Authority, 5th Floor, Vikas Minar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-<br \/>\n           110002<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      4.   Officer Incharge, NIC<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      5.   Press E Group, CIC\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009 Central Information Commission ***** No.CIC\/OK\/A\/2007\/00033 Dated: 22 January 2009 Name of the Complainant : Shri V.M. Thareja GG-111\/30, Vikas Puri New Delhi-110018 Name of the Public Authority : Delhi Development Authority Background: Shri V.M. Thareja of New Delhi filed an RTI-application [&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":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009 - 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\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-20T11:41:55+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-20T11:41:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1399,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-20T11:41:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009 - 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\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-20T11:41:55+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-20T11:41:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2"},"wordCount":1399,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2","name":"Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-20T11:41:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-m-thareja-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-22-january-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri V.M. Thareja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 January, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/230889","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=230889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}