Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1777 (DEL)

TAJINDER SINGH v. D. D. A.

2007-09-07

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, SANJIV KHANNA

body2007
ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th December, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner praying for a direction to the respondent to give allotment of a LIG flat to the appellant at the rates prevalent in the year 1996. 2. The appellant was registered under NPRS 1979 for LIG flat. In 1984 the appellant was given his priority number. On 22nd February, 1994 the appellant was allotted a flat in Bindapur, Delhi but the same was not as per the norms of a LIG flat as the said flat was in the nature of an expandable Janta Flat. A number of similarly placed persons filed a writ petition before this Court being CW No. 1906/1994. As recorded in order dated 24th march, 1995, DDA made a statement that allottees not interested in incremental category flats can send intimation within four weeks and will be included in the draw of lot for LIG category. 3. It was alleged that the persons with lower priority number than the appellant were included in the draw of lots after 1995. It was also alleged that as per the policy of the respondent, even if the appellant was missed out, he should have been included in the next lot. The appellant has stated that since he had come to know about the aforesaid position in January, a 1998, he submitted a representation on 2nd February, 1998 and thereafter another representation on 28th May, 2002. Writ petition was filed in the year 2002. 4. The notice being issued on the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent stated that the appellant himself had applied for the refund of the registration money vide letter dated 17th May, 1994 and for cancellation of his registration. It was stated that consequent upon the said request of the appellant, the allotment/registration of the appellant stood cancelled. It is also stated that the registration money deposited by the appellant could not be refunded since the appellant failed to surrender the original documents, which are mandatory to be furnished for getting refund of the amount paid. It is stated that requirement to furnish original documents is mandatory as cases of misuse and transfer of documents to third parties have come to the knowledge of the DDA. 5. It is stated that requirement to furnish original documents is mandatory as cases of misuse and transfer of documents to third parties have come to the knowledge of the DDA. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned Single Judge heard the writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant himself applied for refund of the registration money vide letter dated 17th May, 1994, on the basis of which his registration was cancelled and thereafter the appellant is not entitled to seek allotment of a flat. It was also held that the aforesaid amount of refund, which was required to be paid to the appellant, could not be paid in view of the failure to submit original documents. The learned Single Judge also held that the appellant has not come to the Court with clean hands as he did not mention in his writ petition the fact that he had sought cancellation of his registration vide letter dated 17th May, 1994. The learned Single Judge held that there is inordinate delay and laches in filing the writ petition. On the aforesaid ground, the writ petition was dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has filed the present appeal, on which we have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant did not take back the amount of refund and, therefore, the name of the appellant should have been included in the draw of lots held subsequently also. It is also stated before us that similarly situated persons like the appellant were allotted with flats. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent. 7. The fact remains that the appellant applied for refund of the registration money vide letter dated 17th May, 1994. Consequent upon the said request made by the appellant himself, his request was accepted and the allotment/registration of the appellant was cancelled. Thus, the name of the appellant was not included in the subsequent draw of lots. The respondent also were ready and willing to return the registration amount to the appellant but the same could not be returned as the appellant failed to surrender the original documents, which are to be filed for refund of the aforesaid amount. Thus, the name of the appellant was not included in the subsequent draw of lots. The respondent also were ready and willing to return the registration amount to the appellant but the same could not be returned as the appellant failed to surrender the original documents, which are to be filed for refund of the aforesaid amount. That the appellant had himself applied for refund of the registration money and that the said request was accepted by the respondent, was not mentioned in his writ petition filed and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has not come to the Court with clean hands as material facts, which were very relevant for deciding the writ petition, did not find mention in the writ petition and were suppressed. There is apparent delay also in filing the writ petition in 2002. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. The contention of the appellant that similarly situated persons like the appellant have been allotted flats even though they had applied for refund of the money, was also raised and considered by the learned Single Judge. The said contention also, however, was rejected holding that the facts and circumstances in other cases where the respondent had allotted flats, were distinctly different. Learned Single Judge has referred to the factual background of the present case, the fact that the appellants allotment was cancelled in 1994, but he had concealed this fact in the writ petition and failure of the appellant to approach Court immediately after 1996, when his name was not included in the draw of lots and after his representation in 1998. The appellant approached the Court only in 2002. 9. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge and upheld by us, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In terms of the aforesaid order, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.