Delhi High Court
Prakash Devi vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 10 December, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8735/2014
Decided on : 10th December, 2014
PRAKASH DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Swastik Singh, Advocate.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate for the DDA.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, ASC for GNCTD/R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.20079/2014 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to the deficiency being rectified.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P. (C) No.8735/2014
1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ
of mandamus for allotment of an alternative DDA flat to the
petitioner in view of the Scheme framed by respondent No.1/DDA,
for the benefit of evictees of Mahavir Enclave-III.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the built-up
property of the petitioner was acquired by the respondent/DDA vide
award No.1/2003-2004 and she was paid compensation to the tune of
Rs.57,800/-. It has been contended that the respondent had
formulated a scheme for allotment of an alternative plot/flat; however,
she was not allotted the same. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed
the present petition. The petitioner is purported to have sent a letter
on 25.6.2014 to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi making a request
for alternative allotment of DDA flat in terms of the scheme and since
nothing has been done, therefore, the present writ petition has been
filed.
3. Mr. Pawan Mathur and Mr. Rajiv Nanda, the learned counsel
are present on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in
response to an advance copy having been served.
4. Mr. Mathur has contended that the allotments were to be made
under the 'Evictees of Mahavir Enclave-III, 2004' scheme. The
applications were invited in the year 2004 itself and a draw was
conducted on 11.6.2004. It has been further contended that the details
of the draw held on the said date have been placed by the petitioner
along with the paper book itself. It has been contended that the
petitioner has woken up belatedly now after a gap of almost ten years
without any valid explanation, therefore, she is not entitled to any
allotment. In addition to this, it has been contended that the petitioner
has never applied for any allotment. Similar averments have been
made on behalf of respondent No.2.
5. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute about the fact that the
petitioner was an evictee of Mahavir Enclave-III and her built-up
property bearing No.C-44, Mahavir Enclave, Part-III, New Delhi, was
acquired by the respondent/DDA and she was paid compensation;
however, the petitioner never applied for alternative allotment of a
plot/flat in terms of the scheme nor has the scheme been placed on
record. In any case, the petitioner ought to have been vigilant to
apply under the scheme only then she may have been considered for
the same.
6. As is evidenced from the paper book itself, applications must
have been invited in the year 2004 itself and the draw has been held
on 11.6.2004. There was absolutely no justification for the petitioner
to wait for a decade and come to the court belatedly for allotment of a
flat or a plot. It seems that the petitioner has been tempted to file the
present petition on account of judicial pronouncement in respect of a
similarly placed person, who had applied for allotment of a flat prior
to 2011 and instead of allotting a flat to him, the same was sought to
be allotted to somebody else. The said writ petition bearing
No.6295/2012 titled Tilak Raj Tanwar vs. DDA & Another was
decided in favour of the petitioner, Tilak Raj Tanwar, on 28.10.2013
and he was granted requisite relief of allotment of a flat.
7. It seems that the petitioner has been emboldened by the said
allotment and has become wiser after a gap of more than a decade and
has filed the present petition to try her luck for allotment of a flat.
The contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner could not
approach earlier on account of being a lady and an illiterate person, is
hardly any justification for keeping silent. The well settled doctrine
of delay and latches, defeating the rights of the parties, is one of the
pre-conditions, absence of which must be satisfied by a party before
seeking to invoke the writ jurisdiction.
8. So far as the contention of the learned counsel with regard to
pendency of the reference petition as a ground for coming belatedly to
the court is concerned, that also does not hold any water on account of
the fact that the reference petition deals only with enhancement of
compensation and not with allotment of an alternative flat or a plot. It
also did not debar the petitioner from filing the writ petition to claim
the alternative plot.
9. I do not find this writ petition deserves to be entertained.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 10, 2014
'AA'
