Raj Kumari vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6744 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



+                             W.P.(C) No.1366/2014


                                    Decided on :       12th December, 2014


    RAJ KUMARI                                              ..... Petitioner
                       Through:      Mr.Ramakant Tripathi, Adv.

                       Versus


    GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                           ..... Respondent


                       Through:      Ms.Raavi Birbal, Adv. for R-1.
                                     Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. for
                                     DDA.
    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

    V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL)

    1.    This is a writ petition by virtue of which the petitioner has

    sought a direction to the respondents to allot a flat either in Dwarka or

    in the alternative anywhere in Delhi as per availability of flats after

    setting aside the letter/order dated 08.05.2013.

    2.    I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have

    also gone through the record.
 3.    The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that she deposited a sum

of Rs.5,000/- vide DD No.796325 drawn on State Bank of India along

with Application No.31869 with respondent No.1 for allotment of a

flat under the Janta Housing Registration Scheme, 1996 ('the

Scheme' for short)

4.    The petitioner was allotted Flat No.175, 3rd Floor, Sector 16-B,

Dwarka, with respect to which she is purported to have learnt on

28.05.2008. The said flat was cancelled on 21.08.2002 along with the

entire draw of lots on account of representation by some of the

allottees on the ground that it did not contain a kitchen. It is stated

that an advertisement in this regard was issued in the newspaper

wherein it was categorically stated that those persons who want the

allotment to be made along with a kitchen, they must apply afresh

while as the rest could take the existing flat.

5.    The petitioner claims that she wrote letters on 05.01.2008,

12.08.2009, 24.05.2010, 04.01.2011, 15.04.2011 and 26.05.2012.

The said representations, according to the petitioner, were responded

twice by the respondent/DDA vide communications dated 28.05.2008

& 16.06.2011, but no favourable response was given to the petitioner
 with respect to allotment of the flat. On 25.11.2012, the petitioner

filed WP(C) No.7352/2012 which was disposed of on 29.11.2012 by

granting liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive

representation within a period of two weeks to the respondent/DDA

stating therein as to when the intimation card disclosing the priority

number was received by the petitioner. The respondent/DDA was

directed to dispose of representation of the petitioner preferably

within a period of four weeks, with fate of the same being made

known to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. The

petitioner was further given liberty to take appropriate action in

accordance with law if she still felt aggrieved.

6.    Consequently,      petitioner    moved       representations   dated

12.12.2012 & 13.03.2013, which were disposed of vide the impugned

order dated 08.05.2013. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the order has

preferred the present writ petition.

7.    The respondents were present in response to the advance copy

having been given. It has been pointed out that the correspondence

which has been placed by the petitioner on record clearly shows that

the Scheme had been closed by the DDA long back and the DDA had
 also published an advertisement in leading news papers seeking

options from the allottees of the said draw whether they wished to

continue with the present allotment or their registration can be

considered for next draw. The allottees who had provided options

were considered the next allotment and since draw was cancelled by

advertising in leading news papers, no individual communication was

sent to the allottees. Since nothing was heard from the petitioner, her

allotment was cancelled.

8.    As per her own version, the petitioner is stated to have woken

up, after the draw of lots having taken place on 08.04.2002, in the

year 2008 and even if it is assumed to be true, she ought to have

approached the court expeditiously for redressal of her grievance to

get the flat rather she chose to make representations to the

respondent/DDA on various dates from 2008 to 2012, as stated above.

A person who is genuinely interested in the allotment of a flat would

not wait endlessly and keep on moving representations to the

respondent/DDA repeatedly.       The law does not help those persons

who rake up stale claims or are not vigilant to protect their interest.

9.    In the instant case, the petitioner has been grossly negligent in
 coming to the court as expeditiously as possible and, therefore, there

is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in coming to the court

and seek allotment of a flat in respect of which she was declared

successful. The prayer of the petitioner for allotment of a flat is

totally hit by delay and laches.

10.   Accordingly, the present petition which is totally misconceived,

is dismissed.




                                                       V.K. SHALI, J.

December 12, 2014 dm