Smt. Raj Kumari vs Delhi Development Authority And ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1363 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner, by this writ petition, prays for allotment of a flat at Vasant Vihar (JNU) in terms of allotment letter bearing No.120(35)/84/SFS/VV/III dated 27.9.1984. Petitioners also makes a prayer to declare the re-allocation of flat at Saket vide letter dated 13.4.1987 as null and void and she be instead re-located at Vasant Vihar.

3. The factual matrix of the case may be noted:-

(i) Petitioner applied in the year 1982, for allotment of a category III falt at Vasant Vihar under the "1982 Fifth Self Financing Housing Scheme". The draw of lot was held on 20.12.1983 and the petitioner was declared successful therein. The registration amount of Rs.15,000/- had been paid by the petitioner in due course. The allotment letter dated 27.9.1984 was issued to the petitioner intimating that she had been allocated a flat at Vasant Vihar (JNU) Ground and First floor. Petitioner, however, did not receive the demand-cum-allocation letter pursuant to this letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner kept on following up with DDA but to no avail. However, in 1987, petitioner was surprised to receive a letter bearing No.120/35/84/SFS/VV/III dated 13.4.1987, appearing at page 39 of the paper book, whereby she was informed that she had been allocated a category III flat on ground floor and first floor (Duplex) at Saket. The estimated cost of the flat was notified as Rs.2,97,900/-. The Installments were also notified. Petitioner was also asked to pay the amount of first three Installments, which had become due.

(ii) It may be noted that the first Installment became due in January, 1986 second in July, 1986 and the third one in January, 1987. Petitioner was asked to make the payment within two months. Petitioner addressed a letter dated 16.6.1987, to the respondent in response to the above demand letter, requesting for three months' extension for payment of the due Installments. Petitioner, it appears, made the payment of Rs.60,000/- on 13.8.1987, Rs.50,000/- on 30.3.1988 and another sum of Rs.45,000/- on 23.9.1988. As the petitioner had failed to make the payment of the Installments demanded, as per schedule, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 8.3.1988. A letter dated 30.3.1988 was addressed by the petitioner, seeking further extension of time, stating, she was not at fault. However, the letter did not mention that it is in response to the show cause notice.

(iii) Respondent/DDA in the absence of any payment being made cancelled the allotment on 20.8.1989. Petitioner protested against the said cancellation only on 2.2.1990.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent/DDA unilaterally changed the allocation from Vasant Vihar (JNU) to Saket. He submits that Saket was not a colony for which petitioner had given his preference. In these circumstances, the cancellation of allotment by respondent was illegal and respondent could not have allotted a flat in Saket to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is entitled tot he restoration of the earlier allocation in Vasant Vihar.

5. On the other hand, Ms.Ansuya Salwan, learned counsel for the respondent/DDA, submits that it is not open to the petitioner to question the allotment of a flat in Saket at this stage. She submits that petitioner was allotted a flat in Saket, since flats in Vasant Vihar were not available and respondent/DDA did their best to accommodate her in South Delhi colony at Saket. Moreover, petitioner accepted the allocation at Saket and did not raise any objection. I find merit in this submission. In none of the letters, addressed by the petitioner, prior to cancellation, there is even whisper about the flat at Saket not being acceptable or the payments being made under protest. As a matter of fact, petitioner simply sought extension of time, due to reasons attributable to her. The original records have also been perused.

From the foregoing, it appears that petitioner had accepted the allocation at Saket. Accordingly, it is no longer open to the petitioner to question the same after she has failed to abide by the requirements to make payment. Another factor, which dissuades me from entertaining this writ petition is the un-explained delay and laches in institution of the writ petition. Though the cancellation was done as far back as August, 1989, petitioner has failed this writ petition in the year 1998. Petitioner has not bee able to explain this delay. In these circumstances, I find no ground to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that petitioner has suffered a lot and it was only on account of illiteracy and ignorance of the petitioner that protest against the change of allocation to Saket was not made. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner in the least is entitled to a sympathetic consideration by respondent. Let the petitioner make a representation to Delhi Development Authority for allotment of any available flat. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would be willing to make the payment at current cost. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that such a representation, if any made, would receive sympathetic consideration, as per policy.

The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.