3
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9738/2006
Judgment dated 04.02.2010
MOHRO DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate
versus
D.D.A ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.K. Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. The brief facts which have led to filing of the present petition are that petitioner had registered herself with the DDA under Ambedkar Avas Yojna, 1989. She was allotted a flat bearing No.167, Sector-14, Pocket - B, Phase-II, Dwarka, Delhi with block dates 20.02.1999 to 24.02.1999 in a draw held on 15.09.1998. The flat was allotted at a disposal cost of Rs.7,33,500/-. The petitioner was required to pay confirmation deposit of Rs.20,000/- by 26.03.1999.
2. Admittedly, petitioner made the confirmation deposit only on 09.04.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that she was facing acute financial problems and was unable to arrange for the money. Petitioner approached the DDA vide communication W.P.(C) 9738/2006 Page 1 of 4 dated 22.04.1999, to convert the allotment from hire purchase to cash down basis as she was facing difficulty in the raising funds. The petitioner did not get any response from the DDA, however, by a letter dated 20.11.2002 the allotment made in her favour was cancelled.
3. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner made repeated representations to the DDA and in the year 2003 Assistant Director vide communication dated 22.12.2003 called upon the petitioner to submit photocopy of the letter dated 22.04.1999 which was written by the petitioner, requesting DDA for change of scheme of payment. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that on 01.01.2004 petitioner submitted a photocopy of the letter dated 22.04.1999 and thereafter sent various letters for expeditious allotment. However, the petitioner was informed by communication dated 09.05.2006 that her request for restoration of the flat has been examined and declined.
4. Counsel for petitioner submits that cancellation was made without any show cause notice and further the allotment should be restored on such terms as the DDA may consider appropriate.
5. This petition has been opposed by counsel for the DDA firstly on the ground that the present petition is barred by delay and laches. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was issued a demand /allotment letter in the year 1999. The petitioner was to make the confirmation deposit of Rs.20,000/- by 26.03.1999, however, she did not deposit the amount within the time allowed, but deposited Rs.20,000/- only on 09.04.1999
6. It is further submitted that the flat of the petitioner was cancelled W.P.(C) 9738/2006 Page 2 of 4 as far back as on 20.11.2002 after the petitioner had failed to make the payment and also failed to reply to the show cause notice which was issued to her on 05.06.2002, copy of which has been filed with the counter affidavit. Counsel for DDA submits that petitioner has suppressed material facts from the Court including receipt of show cause notice to her and on this ground alone the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is next contended by counsel for the DDA that the order of cancellation was passed as far back as on 20.11.2002, the petitioner has failed to take any steps in the matter and approached the Court only in the year 2006. Counsel for DDA also submits that there is no explanation at all as to why the petitioner did not take any steps for pursuing her letter dated 22.04.1999 till passing the order of cancellation.
7. I have heard counsel for parties and also considered the rival submissions which have been made. The petitioner was issued a demand/ allotment letter in the year 1999. The petitioner has failed to make the payment within the time allowed. The petitioner has also failed to respond to the show cause notice which was issued to her on 5.6.2002 and in fact the petitioner has suppressed this communication while filing the writ petition. The flat of the petitioner was cancelled as far back as on 20.11.2002 there is no explanation for the delay in approaching this Court in the year 2006. I find no infirmity in the order of cancellation or the communication, subject matter to this writ petition. Subsequent letter stage managed only to create cause of action. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is W.P.(C) 9738/2006 Page 3 of 4 dismissed.
8. At this stage, counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner wishes to make a representation to the DDA, requesting the DDA for restoration of the flat on the ground that some flats are still available in Dwarka and also that the DDA has been liberal in restoring the cancelled flat as per their policy. No permission is required from the Court to make a representation to the DDA. CM.No.7255/2006 (STAY)
9. Dismissed.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
February 04, 2010 'ssn' W.P.(C) 9738/2006 Page 4 of 4