ORDER 1. The petitioner in this petition seeks to challenge the order dated 29.8.2007 passed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi, whereby the Lt. Governor has ordered that the DDA should recognize the petitioner on the one hand, and the respondent No.5 on the other hand, as separate allottees in respect of the portions occupied by them by dividing plot as A-20/A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi area measuring 270 sq. yards in the name of Sh. Malik Chand (p pppp o n 1 erest of respondent No.5) and A-20/B in the name of the Sh. lnder Raj, the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are the joint owners of the plot admeasuring 450 sq. yards situated at A-20, W.H.S., Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The admitted position is that out of the said plot the petitioner is occupying an area admeasuring 180 sq. yards and the remaining area of 270 sq. yards is in occupation of the respondent No. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned order dated 20.9.2007 issued by the DDA in pursuance of the directions of the Lt. Governor, as aforesaid, the plot has been divided into two, whereby the petitioner has been recognized as owner of an area of 180 sq. yards only whereas the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.5 has recognized as the owner of 270 sq. yards. He is aggrieved by the unequal division of the plot by the respondents between him and the predecessor of respondent No.5. 3. The petitioner, however, does not disclose in the writ petition that the extent of his share in the aforesaid plot of 450 sq. yards, as admitted by him, before the DDA as well as in other judicial proceedings was only 180 sq. yards and that of Sh. Malik Chand was 270 sq. yards. It is evident from the counter affidavit of respondent No.5 that there is gross suppression of facts by the petitioner. A joint application was made on 1.12.1980 by the petitioner and the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.5 Sh, Malik Chand wherein it was stated that separate lease deed be executed for 180 sq. yards in favour of the petitioner and 270 sq. yards in favour of Sh. Malik Chand. The same is filed on record as Annexure R-3 to the counter affidavit of respondent No.5. yards in favour of the petitioner and 270 sq. yards in favour of Sh. Malik Chand. The same is filed on record as Annexure R-3 to the counter affidavit of respondent No.5. The document is not denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder. However, registered Will has been executed by the petitioner wherein he describes himself as the owner of 180 sq. yards out of 450 sq. yards situated at Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. A copy of the same is filed by respondent No.5 as Annexure R-5 to the counter affidavit. 4. The petitioner had also filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Senior Civil Judge, being Suit No. 385/2003 wherein once again he stated as follows: "5. That thereafter Delhi Development Authority allotted an equivalent plot of 450 sq. yds. at A-20, W.H.S. Timber Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, in lieu of 500 sq. yds. plot No. 10153, Lakkar Mandi, Motia Khan to plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on 24th December, 1975 vide Lease Deed as mentioned above in full details. That plaintiff became an owner of 180 sq. yds. in this plot." 5. A copy of the plaint is filed as Annexure R-6 by respondent No.5. From the counter affidavit of the DDA, it appears that even before the Land Allotment Advisory Committee, on 16.12.1975, the petitioner appeared and made a statement that his share in the said plot of 450 sq. yards was 2/5 and that of Sh. Malik Chand was 3/5. The said Committee had recorded: "Both Sh. Inderraj and Malik Chand are present. Their statements on oath have been recorded accordingly. Sh. Malik Chand and Inderraj are allotted jointly one plot measuring 450 sq. yds. in Kirti Nagar. The share of Malik Chand will be 3/5 in the land. The earlier allotment made to Sh. Malik Chand is hereby cancelled and possession be taken over." 6. None of these facts have been disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. On this short ground the writ petition to be dismissed. Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner since all that has been done by the respondent DDA in pursuance of the order of Lt. Governor is to recognize the petitioner as the owner of 180 sq. yards of which he is already in possession and to recognize Sh. Malik Chand the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No.5 as owner of the 270 sq. Governor is to recognize the petitioner as the owner of 180 sq. yards of which he is already in possession and to recognize Sh. Malik Chand the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No.5 as owner of the 270 sq. yards out of the total plot of 450 sq. yards. 7. Ms. Chandra, who appears for the DDA submits that the Lt. Governor exercised his power to sub-divide a plot in the facts of this case, since from the very beginning two separate businesses were being run and two separate NOCs had been obtained. 8. I see no merit in this petition Dismissed. Petition dismissed