Delhi High Court
Bansi Lal Malhotra vs The Delhi Development Authority & ... on 23 December, 2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) No.1750/2014 & C.M. No.3655/2014
Decided on : 23rd December, 2014
BANSI LAL MALHOTRA ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarsh Menon & Mr. Y. Lokesh,
Advocates.
Versus
THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS
...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey &
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the
letter dated 10.6.2013 by virtue of which the prayer of the petitioner for
mutation of his name in place of his mother was rejected by the
respondent/DDA on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the
mutation documents within a period of two years from the date stipulated
as well as failed to deposit the amount pursuant to the allotment-cum-
demand letter.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the mother of the
petitioner had applied for a Janta flat under New Pattern Registration
Scheme, 1979, and the same was registered in 1980. She did not hear
anything from the respondent/DDA for a period of 28 years. It is alleged
that the mother of the petitioner died on 5.5.1994 and the petitioner was
transferred to Ferozepur on 30.4.1998. On 4.7.2000, he was again
transferred to Delhi. It is alleged that his elder sister, Maya Devi, was
seriously ill and she remained admitted in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia
Hospital where she expired on 20.7.2000. The petitioner has contended
that on the officials of the DDA being informed about this, they informed
him that he should wait and he will be allotted a flat in draw of lots. The
petitioner kept on waiting and in the year 2007, the petitioner made a
representation that he has not been allotted any flat and, therefore, he had
sought mutation of the flat in his name in the year 2007 when the mother
of the petitioner was declared to have been allotted Flat No.71, Second
Floor, Pocket B-1, Type B, Loknayak Puram, Delhi, on the basis of draw
of lots held on 27.9.2007.
3. The petitioner applied for mutation; however, the request for
mutation was rejected by the DDA on two grounds. Firstly, he did not
pay the requisite fee and secondly, the mutation had to be got done within
a period of two years from the date of death of the person on account of
whose death, the applicant/petitioner is claiming mutation. Accordingly,
it was said that as the writ has been filed by the petitioner with inordinate
delay and latches consequently, no relief deserves to be given to the
petitioner and the writ deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also
gone through the record. There is no dispute about the fact that the
mother of the petitioner applied under NPRS in the year 1979 and later on
she got her Janta flat converted into an LIG flat. This factum of
conversion was intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.10.1989
and she was given a fresh registration No.62127. As and when the
priority number of the petitioner matured, her name was included in the
draw of lots. On 27.9.2007, a draw of lots was held in respect of various
categories of persons, who had missed out on account of the earlier draw.
During the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioner
approached the Director of the respondent, who informed that his priority
has been declared and he has been allotted an LIG flat. However, the
petitioner could not apply for mutation till the August, 2000, and the
petitioner was constrained to initiate an action in court for allotment of
the flat.
5. The settled legal position is that although the principles of
Limitation Act do not apply to the writ jurisdiction but the broader
principle of delay and latches is applicable to the writ jurisdiction. A
person who is seeking redressal from the court, he must come at the
earliest possible opportunity without any loss of time.
6. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the fact that the
petitioner's mother was registered for Janta flat way back in the year
1979. After a decade, the petitioner's Janta flat was converted at her
request to an LIG flat. The petitioner's mother died in the year 1994 but
till 2007, no intimation was given by the petitioner or any other legal heir
about the death of the registrant. It is only when the draw of lots was
held that the petitioner wanted to take advantage of the said draw of lots
and sought mutation of the registration in his own name. Even this
mutation was sought by the petitioner after expiry of more than two years
from the date of death of the registrant. The DDA has a policy that in
case some registrant dies, the legal heirs of the registrant must apply for
substitution of their name or names in accordance with law within a
period of two years. In the instant case, as mutation was not sought
within a period of two years from the date of death of the registrant,
consequently, the respondents rightly rejected the application of the
petitioner for mutation.
7. In addition to this, the petitioner has also not deposited the cost of
the flat pursuant to the demand-cum-allotment letter which was purported
to be issued in the name of his mother. There is an inordinate delay and
latches in filing the application with the respondent/DDA for mutation,
therefore, no ground for interference by this court is made out.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 23, 2014
'AA'
