MOTI LAL WALI Vs. DELHI DEVEOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Delhi Development Authority (`DDA') cancelling the registration of the Petitioner under its Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 (`RRS 1981') for allotment of an MIG plot. He prays for its restoration.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that the Petitioner was registered with the DDA under its RRS 1981 for allotment of an MIG plot. THE Petitioner stated that at the time of registration he was the owner of a quarter bearing Municipal No. 4674, Murari Lal Building No. 2, Rosanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi consisting of one kitchen, one bath room, one toilet and a courtyard on the ground floor and one room and a small courtyard on the first floor, on a plot of land measuring 55 sq. yards. It is stated that this fact was disclosed by the Petitioner under Column VI-A of the application for registration under the RRS 1981. After the Petitioner furnished the documents and an affidavit by way of an undertaking, by a letter dated 15th June 1983 the DDA informed the Petitioner that his case has been accepted for inclusion in the next draw of lots for allotment of a plot. According to the Petitioner, he thereafter did not hear from the DDA.

(3.) MS. Sangeeta Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the DDA submits that the letter dated 19th December 1986 cancelling the allotment was sent to the Petitioner at his last known address. The said letter was not received back unserved. Therefore, a presumption ought to be drawn, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, that the said letter was duly served. It is submitted that the Petitioner did nothing to challenge the cancellation of his registration for more than 20 years thereafter. Consequently, it is submitted that the present petition is barred by laches. Although, it is not denied that in terms of the order in Jitender Pal Bhardwaj v. DDA the Petitioner would be entitled to relief, the DDA opposes the petition essentially on the ground of laches. It is submitted that the burden to show that he did not receive the letter dated 19 th December 2006 was on the Petitioner.