KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.(C) 13302/2005 impugns the decision dated 13 th May, 2005 of the respondent DDA communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26th July, 2005, of cancellation of allotment earlier made to the petitioner of Plot No.48 ad-measuring 60 sq. mtr. in Pocket B-4, Sector-17 of Rohini Phase-II under Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 and seeks mandamus for being put into possession of the said plot of land. Notice of the said petition was issued and vide order dated 19 th September, 2005 respondent DDA directed to withdraw the said plot of land from the draw proposed to be held on 21st September, 2005 and vide order dated 20th February, 2006 which was made absolute on 9th April, 2009, the respondent DDA restrained from allotting the said plot to any third party.

(2.) W.P.(C) 9051/2006 has been preferred by an allottee of the year 2003 of Plot No.42 ad-measuring 60 sq. mtr. in Pocket-B-5, Sector-17 of Rohini Phase-II who was put into possession of the said plot on 1st February, 2005, complaining of the respondent DDA having allotted and delivered possession of the plot without development and without providing any facilities/amenities therein and seeking a direction for provision thereof. Notice of the said petition was also issued.

(3.) THE Demand-cum-Allotment letter in W.P.(C)13302/2005 is dated 1st - 5th September, 2003 and of the total premium of '7,18,872/-. THE petitioner therein was required to pay '2,38,822 latest by 4th November, 2003, '3,59,436/- latest by 3rd January, 2004 and the balance '1,07,831/- by 2nd February, 2004. THE petitioner though paid the first installment within time on 4th November, 2003, paid the second and the third installments on 11th April, 2005 i.e. after delay of more than one year. THE respondent DDA issued a notice dated 20th September, 2004 to show cause and effected the cancellation on 16th February, 2005. THE petitioner at no time till then, made any communication with the respondent DDA, neither claiming any extension of time for making payment nor giving any explanation for the delay; not even in response to the show cause notice. THE first representation in this regard was made only on 1st August, 2005 by the attorney of the petitioner who is claimed to be the brother of the petitioner.