Mohro Devi vs D.D.A
2010 Latest Caselaw 637 Del

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

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

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

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'