Meena Kanodia vs Delhi Development Authority
2012 Latest Caselaw 933 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           W.P.(C) No.819/2012 & C.M.Nos.1845-46/2012.

                                            Decided on: 10th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
MEENA KANODIA                                         ..... Petitioner
                           Through : Mr. Mukesh M. Goel, Adv.

                    versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY           ..... Respondent
                   Through : Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv.


CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for

directions to the respondent/DDA to allot a plot admeasuring 90 sq. meters

as per her priority number in MIG category under the Rohini Phase IV

Residential Scheme, 1981.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was registered under

HUDCO Transfree quota for allotment of a plot under the aforesaid Scheme.

The registrants were allowed to exercise option of allotment of 60 or 90 sq.

meters plots under the MIG category. The petitioner exercised her option

for a 90 sq. meters plot. However, she was not declared successful in the

draw of lots held prior to the year 1989. In the year 1999, due to limited

availability of land, Government of India decided to limit the size of the plot

to be allotted to the remaining applicants under MIG category to 60 sq.

meters. The petitioner's priority finally matured on 16.6.2003. Pertinently,

it was the first draw of lots held by the respondent/DDA after the decision

taken by the Government restricting the size of the plot for allotment to 60

sq. meters. It is an admitted case that while conducting the draw of lots

held on 16.6.2003, some priorities, including that of the petitioner, were

missed by the computer due to furnishing incomplete date of birth of the

registrants at the time of submission of their applications for registration.

3. The aforesaid position was duly intimated to the husband of the

petitioner in a public hearing. He was also informed that the petitioner

would be allotted a plot in the next draw of lots. Thereafter, a draw of lots

was held on 5.1.2004 and pursuant thereto, the petitioner was allotted a

plot of land admeasuring 60 sq. meters at the pre-determined rate as on

16.6.2003, the date on which her priority was missed. A demand-cum-

allotment letter was issued to the petitioner on 27.1.2004 calling upon her to

deposit the first installment by 27.3.2004 and the second installment by

26.5.2004. Instead of depositing the amounts in terms of the aforesaid

demand-cum-allotment letter, the petitioner started corresponding with the

respondent/DDA and demanded that she be allotted a plot measuring 90 sq.

meters and the plot admeasuring 60 sq. meters allotted to her be withdrawn

by the respondent/DDA.

4. Vide letter dated 24.6.2004 (Annexure P-5), the

respondent/DDA had informed the petitioner that after 29.3.1996, no

applicant could be allotted a plot of 90 sq. meters and that the petitioner

was also not eligible for such an allotment. It was however stated that

though her allotment stood cancelled according to the terms and conditions

laid down in the demand-cum-allotment letter bearing block dates 19.1.2004

to 27.1.2004, in case she needed further time to make payments of

premium of the allotted plot, she could be granted an additional period of

180 days from the due date of installment, subject to payment of restoration

charges and interest in case she would apply for the same. Despite

receiving the aforesaid communication addressed by the respondent/DDA to

the petitioner, she failed to apply for restoration of the plot. Nor did she

deposit any part of the principal amount or interest in that regard. As a

result, a notice to show cause dated 20.9.2004 (Annexure P-6) was issued

by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner calling upon her to show cause

within a period of 15 days as to why the allotment that had been made in

her favour, should not stand automatically cancelled, as she had not applied

to the DDA for extension of time, in terms of the earlier letter dated

24.06.2004.

5. The next letter that the petitioner seeks to rely upon is placed at

Annexure P-7 to the writ petition. The said letter is undated and does not

bear any proof of receipt thereof. In the said letter, the petitioner had

stated that she could not be forced to pay restoration charges and interest

and her case may be considered without deposit of such amounts.

6. At Annexure P-8 to the writ petition, is a letter dated 3.2.2006,

addressed by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner informing her that her

registration had been cancelled due to non-payment within the stipulated

period and the earnest money would be refunded to her upon her submitting

various documents, as mentioned in the said letter. Despite the aforesaid

clear and categorical intimation of cancellation to the petitioner, she did not

initiate any legal measures by approaching the court of law against the

aforesaid cancellation letter issued by the respondent/DDA. Instead, learned

counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner continued

corresponding with the respondent/DDA and had been requesting that a plot

of 90 sq. meters be allotted to her and that she could not be called upon to

pay the restoration charges and interest in respect of the plot measuring 60

sq. meters allotted to her later on.

7. The fallacy of the aforesaid argument of the counsel for the

petitioner is that parleys between the parties cannot be treated as a

substitute for availing legal remedies. The petitioner has not been able to

show any document to establish as to whether she had taken any legal

measures upon receipt of the letter dated 24.6.2004 issued by the

respondent/DDA or even for that matter, the subsequent cancellation letter

dated 3.2.2006 addressed by the respondent/DDA to her. After waiting for a

period of eight years, if reckoned from 24.06.2004, and over six years, if

reckoned from 03.02.2008, the petitioner has now chosen to approach this

Court for seeking restoration of the plot in question, which is impermissible.

The petitioner has also failed to set out the steps taken by her during all this

period to pay the restoration charges and interest as demanded by the

respondent/DDA as per its policy. Further, for all these years, the petitioner

did not deposit even a penny towards the installments as demanded by the

respondent/DDA in respect of the plot measuring 60 sq. meters.

8. It is also pertinent to note that in September, 2011, the

petitioner had approached the Delhi Legal Services Authority seeking

allotment of the plot from the respondent/DDA, which was turned down on

5.9.2011, with an observation made by the Member Secretary that DDA

could not be directed to give any benefit to the petitioner when the

Government had changed its policy and had decided to allot only 60 sq.

meters of plot instead of 90 sq. meters of plot, as long back as in the year

1996. Simultaneously, the petitioner's request for regularization was also

turned down after examining the policy for regularization submitted by the

respondent/DDA.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present

writ petition is dismissed in limine, along with the pending applications, as

being devoid of merits.

                                                           (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 10, 2012                                             JUDGE
sk