Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 518 (DEL)

JATI RAM GUPTA v. D. D. A.

2007-03-08

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (Open Court)- The petitioners land measuring 300 sq. yards was acquired by the Land & Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, respondent No.2 herein under the scheme of Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi. By a letter dated 12.9.1974. respondent No.2 directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) respondent No.1 to allot a plot of 125 sq. yards in favour of the petitioner in Delhi "in Rohtak Road Residential Scheme as he has been found eligible under the Scheme." On 30.6.1975 the DDA issued an allotment letter to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the 25% premium amount of Rs. 1829/- within 15 days thereafter. Despite reminders on 12.8.1975 and 19.9. 1975 the petitioner failed to deposit the said sum. This led to the allotment being cancelled on 14.5.1976. Since there were numerous cases where similar allotments had been cancelled on account of default in making payments, the DDA passed a resolution dated 4.10.1985 deciding not to reopen a such cases. 2. The petitioner filed a Suit No. 328 of 1987 for a declaration and mandatory injunction directing the DDA to allot an alternative plot in Rohtak Road Scheme. The Suit was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge on 12.10.1993. The petitioners appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 23.11.1994. The second appeal, R.S.A. No. 64/95, was dismissed by this Court on 25.1.1996. 3. The petitioner claims that after the dismissal of the second appeal by this Court he "kept on writing letters to respondent No. 1 regarding allotment of plot in his favour." He has annexed to the writ petition copies of letters dated 28.1.2000, 22.2.2001, 17.9.2001 addressed to various Ministers of the Union Government. He also addressed a letter dated 21.11.2002 to the DDA. 4. With reference to each of these letters, the DDA replied on 21.6.2000, 20.2.2001, 25.6.2001, 11.7.2001, 13.8.2001, 5.10.2001 and 1.11.2001 informing the petitioner that his case had already been examined at length and that he should approach the Land and Building Department for a fresh recommendation. 5. The above correspondence did not deter the indefatigable spirit of the petitioner. He made yet another representation to the Lt. Governor on 9.12.2002 which was again replied on 6.2.2003. A letter dated 4.4.2003 addressed to the Prime Minister was replied on 22.5.2003. 6. 5. The above correspondence did not deter the indefatigable spirit of the petitioner. He made yet another representation to the Lt. Governor on 9.12.2002 which was again replied on 6.2.2003. A letter dated 4.4.2003 addressed to the Prime Minister was replied on 22.5.2003. 6. By a letter dated 29.1.2004, the Land and Building Department, respondent No.2 informed respondent No. 1 DDA that: The issue has been examined and it is clarified that the recommendation earlier made by this department vide letter dated 12.9.74 as referred to above has neither been cancelled nor withdrawn by this department and therefore, as per our policy no fresh recommendation can be issue in his favour." 7. More representations followed from the petitioner and on 15.6.2005 the DDA replied as under: "The matter has been examined time and again and informed to you that the request cannot be accepted, as the case has already been closed being a time bar. The reply has already been sent to you vide this office letter of even No. 4124 dated 27.4.2004, 6224 dated 14.6.04, 7524 dated 14.7.04, 11265 dated 1.11.2004 and 588 dated 17.1.2005 and 5.4.2005. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority." 8. By a further letter dated 27.10.2005, in response to the representation dated 25.7.2005, the DDA reiterated its earlier decision. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 14.12.2005 seeking a mandamus to the respondent. 9. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that as per the policy of the DDA three choices were to be made available to each allottee eligible for an alternative plot. He says that the entire litigation which culminated in the dismissal of the second appeal by this Court pertained to the first choice offered to the petitioner. According to Mr. Saini, what the petitioner was now demanding was his right to avail of the second choice. He says that the denial of the second choice to the petitioner is contrary to the policy in vogue and, therefore, a mandamus should be issued to DDA to allot the petitioner an alternative plot. He relied on an allotment letter dated 8.7.2003 issued by the DDA to one Shri Krishan Gopal Sharma offering a second chance. He further referred to a judgment dated 9.5.2005 passed in Writ Petition (C) 19022/2005 titled as Surinder Dutt v. DDA. 10. Ms. He relied on an allotment letter dated 8.7.2003 issued by the DDA to one Shri Krishan Gopal Sharma offering a second chance. He further referred to a judgment dated 9.5.2005 passed in Writ Petition (C) 19022/2005 titled as Surinder Dutt v. DDA. 10. Ms. Charul Sarin, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent DDA raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is barred by laches. She further pointed out that policy sought to be relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a copy of which has been printed out from the website of the DDA, is not the policy prevalent at that time when the allotment of the alternative plot was first made to the petitioner. She says that there is no arbitrariness involved in the decision of the DDA declaring declining to accede to the request of the petitioner for a second allotment. 11. This Court finds considerable merit in the preliminary objections raised by learned Counsel for the respondent as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is well settled that repeated representations made by an aggrieved litigant, cannot explain away the laches in approaching Court in its writ jurisdiction. The narration of facts indicate that after this Court had dismissed the petitioners second appeal way back in 1996, he kept making representations from the year 2000 onwards. There were repeated periodic representations, each of which elicited the same reply. There was absolutely no justification for the petitioner to have waited this long to approach the Court when the respondents did not leave him in doubt that his request was not being acceded to. Nine years is too large a time for the petitioner to have waited to approach this Court. The writ petition is certainly barred by laches. 12. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was in a different set of facts. Further it is not clear if the policy of three choices referred to by the petitioner was prevalent when the petitioner was given the alternate allotment initially. In any event, it does not create any vested enforceable right in the petitioner. Having considered the pleadings and documents of the case, this Court is unable to conclude that the DDA has acted arbitrarily in this matter. 13. For all of the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.