Delhi High Court
Mahesh Chand Gupta vs Dda on 13 September, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th September, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 6631/2011 & CM No.13388/2011 (for stay)
% MAHESH CHAND GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nanda Kinra, Adv.
Versus
DDA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner was a registrant for an MIG flat in the New Pattern
Registration Scheme (NPRS) of the respondent DDA of the year 1979. He
claims, to have given is residential as well as occupational address in the
registration form; to have changed his residence in the year 1989 and given
intimation to the respondent DDA of the same; to have from a public
advertisement published by the respondent DDA in the year 2004 learnt
that all the flats under the said scheme in the MIG category had been
allotted; to have then in the year 2004 itself contacted the respondent DDA
and having been told that in the year 1993 an allotment was made to him
and a Demand-cum-Allotment letter issued but which was received back
undelivered. It was/is the case of the petitioner that the said Demand-cum-
Allotment letter was sent at his old residential address only despite
intimation of change and that said letter was not sent at the occupational
address though furnished. The petitioner claims to have met the officers of
the respondent DDA on 29th March, 2004 in this regard and having
complained of non-receipt of Demand-cum-Allotment letter.
2. The petitioner thereafter, at least on paper did not take any further
action till 13th October, 2008 when an other representation is stated to have
been sent. After waiting for another two years, on 22 nd September, 2010
another representation is stated to have been sent and in response whereto
it is claimed that the respondent DDA verified the documents of the
petitioner.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the
representations, no allotment has been made to him. He seeks a mandamus
directing the respondent DDA to allot to him an MIG flat at Jhilmil where
the allotment in the year 1993 was made and at the cost then prevailing.
4. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the Policy
contained in the office order dated 25th February, 2005 of the respondent
DDA and on, order dated 24th February, 2010 in W.P.(C) 10308/2009
titled Vijander Kumar Verma v. DDA, order dated 6th February, 2007 in
W.P.(C) 15002/2006 titled Hirdayapal Singh v. DDA, order dated 2nd
September, 2008 in W.P.(C) 1373/2006 titled V.N. Bharat v. DDA, order
dated 7th November, 2007 in W.P.(C) 119/2007 titled Abhay Prakash
Sinha v. DDA, order dated 28th January, 2008 in W.P.(C) 266/2007 titled
Usha Saikia v. DDA, order dated 24th February, 2011 in SLP (Civil)CC
No.13626/2008 titled DDA v. Abhay Prakash Sinha and order dated 24th
February, 2011 in W.P.(C) 2624/2010 titled Bhupinder Singh Vohra v.
DDA.
5. In all the aforesaid cases, the petitioners had approached the Court
immediately on coming to know of the dispatch of the Demand-cum-
Allotment letter at the wrong address. Even if there was any mistakes/error
on the part of the respondent DDA in the present case in sending the
Demand-Cum-Allotment letter at the old address and/or in not sending it at
the occupational address of the petitioner, the fact remains that the
petitioner in the year 2004 learnt of the same. This writ petition has been
filed after more than seven years. The representations which the petitioner
claims to have made are also far spread out as aforesaid.
6. There is absolutely no explanation in the writ petition for the delay
in preferring the petition. The only case made out is that since in other
cases of dispatch of Demand-cum-Allotment letter at wrong address
allotments were made, the petitioner is also entitled to allotment.
7. Upon the same being put to the counsel for the petitioner he refers to
the order dated 24th February, 2011 in Bhupinder Singh Vohra (supra)
where in para 8 in response to the objection of laches, it was held that since
the petitioner therein had been waiting for two decades and had filed the
petition immediately on coming to know of the dispatch of the Allotment-
cum-Demand letter at the wrong address, the question of laches did not
arise.
8. However as aforesaid the same is not the position here. Moreover,
the explanation for delay and laches has to be furnished and the petitioner
cannot rely on the condonation of delay in some other case without setting
out any facts of his own.
9. This petition filed in the year 2011, when the cause of action
admittedly accrued in the year 2004 is thus found to be highly belated and
barred by laches, waiver and acquiescence. There is nothing to show that
the matter in the interregnum was under consideration of DDA.
10. I have considered whether merely for the reason of the petitioner
having waited since the year 1979, his case should still be considered. I
am however not inclined to do so. The number of flats are limited; if this
Court were to direct allotment to the petitioner, notwithstanding the
petitioner having slept over his rights and the claim of the petitioner in law
having become barred by time, the same will be at the cost of some other
applicants under some other scheme and allotment in whose favour would
be delayed/deferred for the reason of the direction if issued to
accommodate the petitioner. The transaction was but a transaction for
sale/purchase of immovable property; even though time is not of essence,
the purchaser cannot claim the property after an unusually long time and
for which there is no explanation whatsoever.
11. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that the petitioner is
willing to pay the price of 1993 together with interest at 12% per annum in
accordance with the Policy contained of the office order dated 25th
February, 2005. However the said offer of the petitioner cannot create a
right in favour of the petitioner which has stood extinguished. Nothing in
the order dated 25th February, 2005 also is found to entitle the petitioner to
such relief after long lapse of time.
12. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
pp..
