Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 625 (DEL)

RAMAVTAR GUPTA v. D. D. A.

2007-03-20

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
JUDGMENTE Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (Open Court)- The petitioner applied for the allotment of a plot in the LIG scheme of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 22.4.1981 and deposited the registration amount. In the writ petition it is stated that "the petitioner was allotted some plot by the respondent in a draw but the petitioner was not aware about the same and because of non receipt of any intimation from the respondent about the allotment of a plot, the petitioner could not deposit the amount of the allotted plot. The petitioner came to know about the factum of allotment of a plot in the aforesaid Scheme after a lapse of time but by that time, the respondent had already cancelled the plot allotted to the petitioner." 2. The next date that the petitioner mentions in his writ petition is 22.4.2003 when the application was made by the petitioner to the DDA requesting for issuance of a demand letter in his changed address. It is claimed that because of his medical condition the petitioner has not been able to pursue the matter with the DDA. The petition seeks a mandamus to the DDA to include the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots in future for the Rohini LIG Scheme. 3. The reply by the DDA indicates that the petitioner was issued a demand cum-allotment letter on 29.10.1993 and it was sent to the address furnished by the petitioner. Since there was no response from the petitioner, the allotment was cancelled and plot was re-allotted to another wait-listed person on 27.3.1996. On 13.1.1997, the petitioner wrote a letter to the DDA seeking reallotment of the same plot which he had learnt had been cancelled. This request was rejected on 26.3 .1997. A second request made by the petitioner on 24.11.1998 was rejected on 8.4.1999. The petitioner was asked to apply for the refund and a reminder was also sent on 2.3.2000. It is submitted that the subsequent letters were written by the petitioner suppressing the above facts. In that view of the matter, his request for restoration of allotment was not considered since the allotment was cancelled way back in 1997 itself. 4. The rejoinder of the petitioner does not deny that the petitioner wrote to the respondent on 13.1.1997. It is silent on the further letters written by the petitioner. 5. In that view of the matter, his request for restoration of allotment was not considered since the allotment was cancelled way back in 1997 itself. 4. The rejoinder of the petitioner does not deny that the petitioner wrote to the respondent on 13.1.1997. It is silent on the further letters written by the petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on an order dated 9.3.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 14688/2005, Suresh Kumar Jain v. Delhi Development Authority to contend that even where the fault was not with the DDA, the petitioners registration should be kept alive and included in a future draw in which, if successful, the petitioner should be allotted a plot on current rates. 6. This Court finds that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts in his writ petition. If indeed, as he admits, he wrote to the DDA on 13.1.1997 stating that "I was not aware of the fact that a plot No. 8/143, Sector23, Rohini, New Delhi was allotted to me in a draw held by the DDA", there was absolutely no justification for not mentioning this in his writ petition. Instead in para 5, the, petitioner claims that he was not aware about the allotment of the plot. The petitioner also does not deny that he again wrote to the DDA on 24.11.1998 for a fresh allotment of a plot which was refused by letter dated 8.4.1999. He also does not advert to the fact that the DDA had written to him asking to apply for refund by a reminder letter dated 2.3.2000. The conduct of the petitioner in the instant case disentitles him to any relief. 7. Even on merits this Court finds that in the present case no fault can be found with the DDA in cancelling the allotment in 1997 when the petitioner failed to make payments in terms of the demand letter issued to him. The facts in Suresh Kumar Jain indicate that the priority of the petitioner there had not matured for over 22 years. Not only are the facts here different but it is also clear that the petitioner has not been diligent in pursuing his case with the DDA. 8. For all of the above reasons there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed as such with no order as to costs. Not only are the facts here different but it is also clear that the petitioner has not been diligent in pursuing his case with the DDA. 8. For all of the above reasons there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed as such with no order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.