Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chander Khanna vs Dda on 7 May, 2012
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: April 16, 2012
Pronounced on: May 07, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 8013/2009
RAMESH CHANDER KHANNA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. Kinra, Advocate
versus
DDA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
%
ORDER
07.05.2012
1. In this petition, a mandamus is sought to the respondent to issue
Demand Letter in respect of flat No. 278, Sector- 23, Pocket-2,
Rohini, Delhi (henceforth referred to as the subject flat) allotted to
the petitioner in the draw held on 31st March, 2004.
2. In the counter filed by the respondent, it is disclosed that the
petitioner was a registrant under NPRS 1979, vide application No.
42870 for allotment of a MIG flat and in the year 1991, flat No. 22,
Second Floor, in Sector- 15, Rohini, was allotted to the petitioner. As
per the respondent, despite Show Cause Notice of 11th March, 1992
issued to the petitioner, he had failed to deposit the cost of the flat and
so, the aforesaid allotment of the flat stood cancelled on 2 nd June,
1992 and the same was communicated to the petitioner.
3. The stand taken by the respondent in the counter is that though
the petitioner had not sought any tail end priority nor had deposited
W.P. (C) No.8013/2009 Page 1
the cancellation charges but due to inadvertence, petitioner's case was
put up in the draw held on 31st March, 2004 and he was again allotted
the subject flat in Sector- 23, Rohini, Delhi and was required to
furnish the documents along with the copy of the challan showing
payment of cancellation charges.
4. Petitioner had failed to produce copy of challan showing
payment of charges in respect of the earlier allotment made to him and
his case was put up before the respondent's Committee and the
petitioner had appeared before the said Committee on 3 rd December,
2010 and had stated that he had not sought any tail end priority after
the cancellation of first allotment of the flat in the year 1992.
Dismissal of this petition is also sought by the counsel for the
respondent- DDA on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of
about five years, as the second allotment of flat was inadvertently
made to him in the year 2004, whereas petitioner has approached this
Court in the year 2009.
5. At the hearing of this petition, it was urged by learned counsel
for the petitioner that it was intimated to the respondent by the
petitioner in the year 1991-92 that due to financial reasons, petitioner
is unable to accept the allotment of the flat made to him and vide
communication of 2nd June, 1992 (Annexure P-2), respondent had
informed the petitioner that the cancellation charges would be
intimated to the petitioner in due course.
6. To explain the delay, learned counsel for the petitioner relies
upon the decision in W.P.(C) No.2624/2010, Bhupinder Singh Vohra
vs. Delhi Development Authority, rendered on 24.02.2011, to contend
that during the years 2004 to 2009, petitioner had been representing to
the respondent and so, the petitioner cannot be non-suited on this
W.P. (C) No.8013/2009 Page 2
account. Reliance was also placed by petitioner's counsel upon
decision in WP(C) No. 10827/2009, Govind Singh Bagga vs. DDA,
rendered on 5th March, 2010, to assert that despite rejection of
petitioner's case by the respondent - committee in the afore-cited
decision, relief was granted by the Court. Thus, it was contended on
behalf of the petitioner that there is no justification with the
respondent to deny the possession of the subject flat in question to the
petitioner.
7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the material on record, what emerges is that the petitioner had neither
sought tail end priority after the cancellation of the first allotment of
flat in the year 1992 nor had paid the cancellation charges in respect
of the first allotment of flat. It is not the case of the petitioner that he
was not intimated the quantum of cancellation charges by the
respondent. In view of the aforesaid, petitioner becomes ineligible for
the allotment of flat under the tail end priority category. Due to sheer
inadvertence of the respondent petitioner was allotted the subject flat
in the year 2004. Pertinently, the allotment of the subject flat to the
petitioner vide Annexure P-5 was not acted upon by the respondent as
the petitioner had failed to furnish the proof regarding payment of
cancellation charges in respect of the first allotment of the flat made to
him.
8. So far as this petition being barred by latches is concerned, I
find that in view of the communications (Annexure P-7 to Annexure
P-12), the delay stands sufficiently explained. There is no dispute that
mere rejection of petitioner's case by respondent's Committee cannot
be a ground to deny a relief to the petitioner in the present
proceedings, but what remains unassailable is the admission made by
W.P. (C) No.8013/2009 Page 3
the petitioner before the respondent's Committee on 3 rd December,
2010 of his not seeking tail end priority.
9. In the aforesaid view of this matter, the petitioner cannot take
any advantage of the inadvertent allotment of flat made to him by the
respondent vide Communication (Annexure P-5) as the petitioner was
not eligible for being considered for second allotment of flat under the
tail end priority as he has not sought it. Additionally, petitioner
became ineligible for the allotment of the subject flat on account of
non-deposit of the cancellation charges in respect of the first allotment
made to the petitioner. Thus, finding no merit in this petition, I
dismiss it with no orders as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
May 07, 2012.
rs/pkb
W.P. (C) No.8013/2009 Page 4
