Delhi High Court
Sushil Kumar Jain vs Delhi Development Authority on 7 July, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 7th July, 2015
+ REVIEW PETITION No.346/2014 in W.P.(C) 7433/2012
SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. By virtue of this Review Petition, the Respondent (DDA) seeks review
of the judgment dated 12.11.2013 passed by this Court whereby a writ
of mandamus was issued to the DDA to allot a flat of equivalent area
(to the area of Petitioner's allotted flat) to the Petitioner (Sushil Kumar
Jain) at the price as prevalent in the year 2012 within a period of
twelve weeks.
2. In fact, the Respondent (DDA) had preferred an LPA against the
judgment dated 12.11.2013. One of the submissions raised by the
Respondent (DDA) before the Division Bench was that the NRPS
Scheme, 1979 (under which the Petitioner had registered for allotment
of an MIG flat) been closed in the year 2006, the writ petition filed in
the year 2012 was highly belated and this fact had not been noted and
decided by this Court. Thereafter, the DDA (Appellant) sought leave
to withdraw the appeal with liberty to raise the said issue before this
Court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
3. The learned counsel for the Respondent-DDA referring to the Division
Bench judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Sunil Kumar Jain,
LPA 277/2013, decided on 11.03.2014 has urged that NPRS Scheme,
1979 was closed a long time ago. A public advertisement dated
01.05.2004 informing all left over registrants under the NPRS
Scheme, 1979 to contact DDA so that their names could be entered in
a draw of lots, was issued. Another advertisement on 02.02.2006 to
the same effect was also issued. Petitioner (Sushil Kumar Jain) having
failed to approach the Respondent (DDA) in terms of the said
advertisements cannot make a grievance regarding cancellation of the
allotment after six long years. It is urged by the learned counsel for
the DDA that since the writ petition in that case was also filed six
years after the closure of the scheme as in the instant case; the writ
petition ought not to have been entertained by this Court and instead
of allowing the writ petition by issuing a writ of mandamus, the writ
petition ought to have been dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent-DDA refers to Paras 5 to 9 of the
Division Bench judgment in Sunil Kumar Jain (supra), which are
extracted hereunder:-
"5. Case pleaded by DDA was that its records do not
evidence any fresh priority number assigned to the
respondent; but we highlight that DDA admits that
respondent had paid the cancellation charges and it had
a policy as per which all those who had surrendered the
allotments but kept alive their entitlement by paying
cancellation charges were to be put as last tale end
priority registrants. As per DDA it issued a public
advertisement on May 01, 2004 informing that all left
over registrants under NPRS 1979 should contact DDA
officers so that their names could be entered in a draw of
lots. It was informed that DDA would be closing the
NPRS 1979 Scheme. Realizing that a few registrants had
overlooked the advertisement issued on May 01, 2004
another advertisement in same terms was notified on
February 02, 2006. It was pleaded that the respondent
did not contact any officer of DDA. It was pleaded that
the scheme was closed. It was pleaded that the
respondent could not endlessly sleep like a Rip Van
Winkle and arise from the slumber when the world had
changed.
6. While issuing the direction against DDA the learned
Single Judge has been influenced by the fact that it was
the obligation of DDA, having accepted cancellation
charges in November, 1993, to enter respondent's name
in the tale end priority category.
7. The learned Single Judge has clearly overlooked the
fact that if DDA was at fault, so was the respondent. The
respondent could not sleep at his leisure and pleasure for
19 years and approach the Court in the year 2012. If he
was not receiving any satisfactory response from officers
of DDA he ought to have approached the Court at the
earliest. As far as DDA is concerned it took out two
advertisements in the year 2004 and 2006 informing
those who had surrendered their allotments to approach
DDA so that their names could be entered in the tale end
priority category. The appellant did not respond when
said public notices were issued.
8. The learned Single Judge has overlooked that the
scheme in question was closed in the year 2006. The writ
petition was filed after 6 years of closure of the scheme.
9. We hold that the claim being stale had to be rejected."
5. The Review Petition is resisted by the Petitioner (Sushil Kumar Jain).
It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in Sunil
Kumar Jain's case, allotment of Flat No.249, Sector A-5, Pocket 6,
GRPI, GRD, Narela was made. However, the Respondent in that case
did not have sufficient funds to pay the demanded amount. He,
therefore, requested to cancel the allotment made and keep alive his
entitlement for the flat to be allotted at a future draw.
6. It is contended that no specific averment about the date of the public
advertisements was made by the DDA in its counter affidavit. It is
further urged that it is a case where this Court found that the allotment
letter was not at all issued/posted to the Petitioner. The judgment in
Sunil Kumar Jain (supra) will hence, not be applicable to the facts of
the present case. The learned counsel argues that in fact this case will
be squarely covered by another Division Bench judgment in Delhi
Development Authority v. Prem Bhatnagar, LPA No.1098/2011,
decided on 14.02.2012 wherein for want of sending the allotment
letter at the occupational address and in spite of the Respondent
approaching the Court in the year 2010, the allotment of the flat to the
Respondent was upheld but it was ordered that the cost of the flat as
on 19.05.2011 shall be payable by the Respondent (Allottee).
7. I have perused the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in
response to the original writ petition. I have gone thought the counter
affidavit with regard to closure of the NPRS Scheme-1979 which is
extracted hereunder:-
"...Since the NPRS scheme 1979 has already been closed
after having publicized the same through leading
Newspapers, the petitioner is not entitled for allotment
and is rather entitled for refund of registration money
subject to submission of original documents."
8. I am of the view that considering the fact that since the allotment letter
is proved to have not even been posted to the Petitioner (Sushil Kumar
Jain), merely on the strength of a public advertisement having been
issued after 27 years of registration by the Respondent (DDA), he
cannot be denied the allotment of the flat even if he approached the
DDA after 5-6 years of the closure of the scheme, particularly when it
has not been specifically stated by the Respondent (DDA) as to when
the last left over person was allotted the flat under the NPRS Scheme
1979.
9. I do not find any error apparent on the face of record so as to review
the judgment dated 12.11.2013.
10. The Review Petition filed by the DDA therefore, cannot be
entertained; the same is accordingly dismissed.
11. CRL.M.A. 9446/2014 also stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 07, 2015
vk
