Delhi High Court
Vilaiet Jafri vs Delhi Development Authority on 16 July, 2010
Author: Manmohan
54
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 475/2010
VILAIET JAFRI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 16th July, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
MANMOHAN, J (Oral)
CM 12252/2010
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
CM 12253/2010
This is an application for condonation of delay of 40 days in
filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 40 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
LPA 475/2010
1. The present Letters Patent appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 26th April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) No. 1753/2010
2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the
appellant's writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
3. The learned Single Judge has observed as under:-
"8. Whereas in this case petitioner became aware of
the allotment in the year 1994 and thereafter slept over
the matter and filed this petition only in the year 2010.
9. The writ petition shows that petitioner had
approached the DDA in the year 1994 as also in the year
2000 and 2005, but he did not get any satisfactory
answer.
xxx xxx xxx
11. Taking into consideration that the petitioner gained
knowledge of the allotment in his favour in the year 1994
there is no satisfactory explanation, except the submission
that when the petitioner approached the DDA he was
informed that policy decision is also to be taken in the
matter and he would be informed about the same. In the
absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay in
approaching this Court, I find no merit in this petition.
Dismissed."
4. The admitted facts are that the appellant had in 1981 registered
himself with DDA's for allotment of a MIG category plot. Though
according to DDA, appellant was intimated in 1991, that he had been
allotted a plot in the Rohini Scheme, appellant claims that he did not
receive the said communication. However, appellant admits that he
became aware of the allotment in the year, 1994.
5. Mr. Dilip Singh, learned counsel for appellant contended that
there was no delay in filing the Writ petition as the appellant had been
repeatedly making representation to the respondent/Delhi Development
Authority and was waiting for their response. He further stated that as
Delhi Development Authority's Rohini Scheme is still open, appellant
should be allotted a MIG category plot.
6. In our opinion, if the appellant became aware of the allotment in
the year, 1994 and if there were some issues with DDA, he should have
asserted his legal right within a reasonable time period. We agree with
the learned Single Judge that in the event, this Court were to entertain
the appellant's Writ petition after a lapse of 16 years, it would not only
create confusion but also cause public inconvenience and inflict
hardship and injustice to third parties who were in the waiting list.
7. Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of merits is
dismissed in limine but with no order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
JULY 16, 2010
js
