Moti Lal Wali vs Delhi Development Authority
2011 Latest Caselaw 139 Del

$~
*  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

9
+                          W.P.(C) 8619/2008


 MOTI LAL WALI                                                 ..... Petitioner
                           Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate

                                      versus


 DELHI DEVEOPMENT AUTHORITY                  ..... Respondent
              Through: Ms Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate


 CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR


          1. Whether 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 Digest?           No

                                       ORDER

11.01.2011

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Delhi Development

Authority ('DDA') cancelling the registration of the Petitioner under its

Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 ('RRS 1981') for allotment of an MIG plot.

He prays for its restoration.

2. The admitted facts are that the Petitioner was registered with the DDA

under its RRS 1981 for allotment of an MIG plot. The Petitioner stated that at

the time of registration he was the owner of a quarter bearing Municipal No.

4674, Murari Lal Building No. 2, Rosanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi

consisting of one kitchen, one bath room, one toilet and a courtyard on the

ground floor and one room and a small courtyard on the first floor, on a plot

of land measuring 55 sq. yards. It is stated that this fact was disclosed by the

Petitioner under Column VI-A of the application for registration under the

RRS 1981. After the Petitioner furnished the documents and an affidavit by

way of an undertaking, by a letter dated 15th June 1983 the DDA informed the

Petitioner that his case has been accepted for inclusion in the next draw of lots

for allotment of a plot. According to the Petitioner, he thereafter did not hear

from the DDA.

3. When the priority numbers proximate to that of the Petitioner's were

included in the draw of lots held on 21st September 2005 and his name was

not included. The Petitioner approached the DDA on 7th February 2006 to

find out why his name was not included. By its letter dated 30 th November

2006, the DDA informed the Petitioner that his registration had been

cancelled by a letter dated 19th December 1986. A copy of the said letter of

cancellation was enclosed. The Petitioner states that he was shocked and

surprised to receive the aforesaid letter for the first time and that cancellation

of his registration was made without any prior notice. Thereafter, the

Petitioner personally visited the office of the DDA and met the officials a

number of times but without any success.

4. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relies upon the

decision dated 7th August 2008 of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5417

of 2007 (Jitender Pal Bhardwaj v. Delhi Development Authority) where it

was held that a person holding a house/plot/flat having an area of less than 65

sq. m. at the time of registration, was eligible for allotment under the RRS. It

was further held that a person who acquired such house/plot/flat even after

registration under the RRS, was entitled for allotment of a plot under the

RRS. It is further submitted that the said decision was taken up in appeal by

the DDA to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27181 of

2009 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9 th October 2009.

Reliance was also placed on an order dated 28th October 2006 passed by this

Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2004 of 2006 (Basant Kumar Rastogi v.

Delhi Development Authority).

5. Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the DDA submits that

the letter dated 19th December 1986 cancelling the allotment was sent to the

Petitioner at his last known address. The said letter was not received back

unserved. Therefore, a presumption ought to be drawn, under Section 27 of

the General Clauses Act, that the said letter was duly served. It is submitted

that the Petitioner did nothing to challenge the cancellation of his registration

for more than 20 years thereafter. Consequently, it is submitted that the

present petition is barred by laches. Although, it is not denied that in terms of

the order in Jitender Pal Bhardwaj v. DDA the Petitioner would be entitled to

relief, the DDA opposes the petition essentially on the ground of laches. It is

submitted that the burden to show that he did not receive the letter dated 19 th

December 2006 was on the Petitioner.

6. The above submissions have been considered by this Court.

7. As regards the objection raised by the DDA on the ground of laches, this

Court has perused the original file of the DDA. There is no acknowledgment

card duly signed by the Petitioner on the file. It is unlikely that the Petitioner,

if he had received the letter dated 19th December 1986, would not have taken

steps to challenge the cancellation. The version of the Petitioner that he had

no means to suspect that his registration had been cancelled and that he was

waiting for his priority to mature is not unbelievable. It is not unusual for the

allottees to wait for more than 20 years for their priorities to mature. In this

case, when the priority numbers proximate to the Petitioner's came to be

included in the draw of lots held on 21st September 2005 and the Petitioner's

name was not included, the Petitioner was prompted to approach the DDA to

find out the reasons for the non-inclusion. This appears probable.

8. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the DDA that even after

receiving the letter dated 30th November 2006, the Petitioner chose to wait till

December 2008 to file the present writ petition. However, the Petitioner

appears to have been pursuing the matter with the DDA during this period.

Consequently, this Court is not inclined to entertain the objection of the DDA

that the present petition is barred by laches.

9. The decision in Jitender Pal Bhardwaj v. DDA clearly applies to the case

of the Petitioner. Admittedly, the quarter owned by him at Municipal No.

4674, Murari Lal Building No. 2, Rosanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi was

less than 65 sq. m. He was, therefore, not disentitled from allotment of a plot

under the RRS 1981. The order passed by the Supreme Court dismissing the

appeal filed by the DDA in the Jitender Pal Bhardwaj case reaffirms this

position.

10. By the interim order dated 4th December 2008 the Petitioner's name was

directed to be included in the draw of lots for allotment of plots under the

RRS 1981. It is stated that pursuant to the said interim order a mini draw of

lots was held on 4th February 2009 in which the Petitioner was included and

an allotment was made. It was subsequently sought to be pointed out by the

DDA that this was a mistake and that the Petitioner's name ought to have

been included only in the regular draw of lots. This does not matter since in

any event the Petitioner has been allotted a plot No. 44, Pocket C-5, Sector-

28, Rohini, Delhi, pursuant to the said mini draw.

11. Consequently, the DDA's letter dated 19th December 1986 cancelling the

allotment in favour of the Petitioner is hereby set aside. Within a period of

four weeks from today, the DDA will inform the Petitioner of the amount that

he has to pay, in terms of its policy, for restoration of the allotment. The

Petitioner will make the payment within a further period of four weeks in

terms of the said communication and upon completion of all formalities, he

will be put in possession of the plot in question within four weeks thereafter.

12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

S. MURALIDHAR, J JANUARY 11, 2011 rk