Shri Sher Singh vs Delhi Development Authority
2001 Latest Caselaw 185 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner's case is that the Government of NCT of Delhi recommended his case for allotment of alternate plot way back in April, 1991. A plot of 207 Sq.mtr. was offered for allotment to the petitioner on 13.1.1993, being plot No.29, Pocket 11/A, Sector 22, Rohini. The allotment was at the provisional rate of Rs.1650.65 Sq.mtrs. This was not acceptable to the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the same vide writ petition No.1255/93. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.1998, along with about a bunch of 129 other writ petitions.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner nor the counsel were aware of the said order. The writ petition was disposed of along with other bunch of writ petitions. In terms of the order passed, four weeks' time was granted to the petitioners to make a request for allotment. DDA was to consider the same within eight weeks and give a schedule for payment, which included interest @ 18% per annum being paid by the petitioner on the outstanding amount. Possession was also to be handed over within four weeks thereafter. Be that as it may, petitioner did not apply in terms of the aforesaid order.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the order passed by the Division Bench dated 10.3.2000 in CM.No.9951 and 9952 in CW.No.1245/93. The applications had been moved by a petitioner, who had failed to apply for allotment in terms of the order of the Division Bench and now sought the relief of possession. The Division Bench declined to grant the relief sought noting that the allotment stood cancelled and passed the following order.

"After the writ petition was disposed of on October 28, 1998 the petitioner/applicant did not avail of the opportunity which had been allowed of submitting request in terms of the said order within the stipulated period. As per the affidavit of the respondent the allotment stood cancelled and intimation was sent by respondent on April 23, 1999. After six months the petitioner has approached the Court seeking further directions for handing over possession.

In view of the fact that allotment stands cancelled which was conveyed to the petitioner on April 23, 1999 no order as prayed for can be passed except of taking on record the statement of the respondents made in reply that as per prevailing system name of the petitioner will be included in the draw of lots after April 23, 2000 as per his seniority in the list. We also direct so. With these observations the applications stand disposed of."

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not aware of the order disposing of the writ petition. Ms.Amrit Kaur urges that benefit of Seniority should not be denied to the petitioner and even as per the existing policy of DDA, he was eligible for being considered after a period of one year and according to her the said period elapsed on November, 1999. I am not persuaded to accept this in the absence of anything concrete before the Court to explain as to why petitioner's case be treated differently from those, who had failed to apply in terms of the Court order. Be that as it may, in this case, petitioner was notified of the deemed cancellation on 23.4.1999. Petitioner would thus be eligible, as per seniority, for being considered after 22.4.2000. Respondent/DDA shall duly consider the petitioner's case giving him the due seniority after 22.4.2000.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of with these directions.