Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Ms. Harshmita Singh and Ms. Ishita Sehrawat, Advocates v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17035/2022 and CM APPL. 63463/2023 M. S. NIJAGALI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Ms. Harshmita Singh and Ms. Ishita Sehrawat, Advocates. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsel for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 09.07.2025 1. The present petition has been filed by petitioners seeking refund of an amount of Rs.8,77,500/- received by the respondent/DDA from the petitioner along with interest. 2. The case set out by the petitioners is that petitioners were allured by Late Prem Shankar and G.S. Arora, who misrepresented to the attorney of the petitioners that they are employees of the respondent/DDA and petitioners have been allotted plot no. 14, Block-B, Mayfair Residential Scheme, New Delhi by the respondent /DDA. 3. On the basis of said misrepresentation, the petitioners deposited an amount of Rs.5,40,000/- with the respondent/DDA on 13.12.1995 and thereafter further amount of Rs.3,37,500/- was deposited on 19.01.1998. 4. Mr. Anindya Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 12:49:59 petitioners submits that though petitioners had deposited the said amount on the misrepresentation made by Prem Shankar as well as G.S Arora, however no allotment had been made by the respondent/DDA to the present petitioners, therefore, DDA ought to have refunded the said amount. However, despite representations and legal notice, no refund was made to the petitioners and thus, they were constrained to file the present petition. 5. He submits that various other individuals, who are similarly situated like the petitioners and were also misrepresented by various officials of the respondent/DDA and likewise deposited amount with the DDA, had also filed separate writ petitions before this Court. 6. He submits that all the said writ petitions have been allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Even the intra-court Appeal preferred by the respondent/DDA against the judgment of learned Single Judge also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench, which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. The attention of the Court is invited to one such decision dated 08.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 10030/2020 titled as Navin Kumar Hotla v. DDA and Anr. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the claim of the petitioners therein was allowed by this Court. The relevant excerpts from the said judgment reads thus: “28. All the above said writ petitions are accordingly allowed with the direction to DDA to process the refund and to return the principal amount to the respective petitioners on their complying with the conditions as mentioned in letter dated 29.09.2014. In case the original challans and any other documents have already been furnished by the petitioners, needless to say, the petitioner would be relieved of complying such condition. They all would, however, file fresh affidavit(s) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 12:49:59 with DDA, clearly deposing therein that they are not required in any criminal investigation or criminal trial, pertaining to allotments in question. 29. Simultaneously, in order to safeguard the interest of DDA, wherever DDA points it out, specifically and clearly, that the amount in question, either by way of bank challan or by a demand draft, had not come directly from the bank account of the concerned petitioner, such petitioner, on receiving due information and requisite particulars from DDA about any such third party, would submit No Objection Certificate and supporting affidavit from any such third party who had allegedly made the payment on their behalf. Wherever possible, the petitioners may also obtain a certificate from the concerned bank to demonstrate that the payment was made by them or at their behest. 30. The respondent would, thereafter, ensure that the refund is made within a total period of 12 weeks from today. In case the amount is not refunded back to the respective petitioners within 12 weeks from today, the respondent shall refund the principal amount with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of deposit till the amount is actually paid back to the writ petitioners.” 8. The aforesaid judgment is not disputed by Ms. Manika Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/DDA. However, she submits that there was no scheme of the DDA and the the petitioners are co-conspirators. Suffice it to state, similar stand was taken by the respondent/DDA in Navin Kumar Hotla (supra) as well, however, the same was rejected by this Court. 9. That being the position, the present petition is allowed with a direction that the benefit of the aforesaid judgment in Navin Kumar Hotla (supra) shall also enure to the present petitioners. 10. Consequently, respondent/DDA is directed to refund an amount of Rs. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 12:49:59 8,77,500/- to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks, failing which DDA shall be liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum from the date of deposit till the amount is actually paid back to the petitioners. 11. Petitioners shall also comply with the conditions laid down in Para 28 to 30 of the decision in Navin Kumar Hotla (supra). 12. The petition stands disposed of. Pending application are also disposed of. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J JULY 9, 2025/jg