RANJIT DIXIT Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of allotment of Flat No. 10, Block B, Pocket-5, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi in favour of the petitioner vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 24.9.1991 and prays for allotment of a similar flat in the same area on the same terms and conditions and price with fresh block dates for payment at which earlier flat was allotted to him.

(2.) The petitioner applied for allotment of an MIG flat under new Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 in the year 1979. Registration number of the petitioner was 9959 and priority number was 9592. On 18th February, 1991, the petitioner was allotted MIG Flat No. 10, Block B, Pocket-5, Sector 15, Rohini on cash down basis. The petitioner did not receive the allotment-cum-demand letter. However, on 9.5.1991, the petitioner learnt that the said flat had been allotted to Kanwar Bhan Malik when he received the notice from the Court in CW1509/91. This Court vide order dated 7.5.1991 had directed the DDA to maintain status quo in respect of the flat in question. On 21st August, 1991, the petitioner made a representation to the DDA asking it to settle the case with the earlier allottee before issuance of demand letter to him in respect of flat in question. Despite representation of petitioner, the respondent/DDA issued an allotment-cum-demand letter in favour of the petitioner on24.9.1991 in respect of flat in question. The petitioner was asked to flat in question. The petitioner was asked to make payment of Rs. 3,79,142.24 on or before 23.12.1991 failing which the allotment would be cancelled. On 3.10.1991, the petitioner made another representation to the DDA pointing out that he was not liable to make payment of the demand and he would deposit the money after getting confirmation that the dispute regarding the flat in question had been decided in favour of DDA. On 7th December, 1991 and 20.12.1991, two more representations were made by the petitioner. On 21.1.1992, the respondent/DDA issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause, within 15, as to why allotment of flat in question in his favour be not cancelled. According to the petitioner, the said letter was actually posted on 21.2.1992. On 26th February, 1992, the petitioner responded to the show cause notice. The petitioner made three more representations to respondent/DDA on 4.10.1992, 26.3.1993 and 9.11.1993. The respondent/DDA confirmed that the case regarding flat in question was pending in the Court and as soon as a decision was taken, the petitioner would be informed. During the period from 26.11.1993 to 18.7.1996, the petitioner made 8 more representations to the respondent but to no avail. During this period, the respondent/DDA gave possession of the flat in question to Mr. Kanwar Bhan Malik but did not allot a suitable alternative flat to the petitioner. On 25.10.1996, the petitioner filed a complaint against respondent/DDA before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Delhi praying for direction to DDA to give him possession of an MIG flat in Rohini having parity in all respect of the flat which was allotted to him in the draw of lots in February, 1991 and also pay compensation amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs. Notice was issued to the respondent/DDA. The respondent/DDA filed the reply on 10.7.1998. The DDA admitted that the possession of flat in question had been handed over to Mr. Kanwar Bhan Malik. The case of the plaintiff for allotment of an alternative flat was under consideration and allotment would be made in due course. However, the petitioner withdrew the complaint on the objection raised by the DDA with regard to jurisdiction and maintainability. The complaint was dismissed as withdrawn. Hence the present petition.

(3.) Notice was issued to respondent/DDA by order dated 12th October, 2000. Interim order was also passed directing the respondent/DDA not to allot Flat No. 38, Block-C, Pocket-B, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi to anyone else except the petitioner, if not already allotted. The respondent/DDA in its counter affidavit admitted that the petitioner was allotted a Flat No. 10, Block-D, Pocket-5, Rohini through draw of lots held on 18.2.1991. Demand letter was issued to him on the block dates of 20.9.1991, 24.9.1991. The petitioner was required to pay the amount latest by 23.12.1991. It was stipulated in the letter that if the demanded amounts were not paid by 23.12.1991, the allotment would be cancelled automatically. The petitioner failed to comply with the instructions contained in the allotment-cum-demand letter. Show cause notice was issued to him. Despite show cause notice having been issued to the petitioner, he failed to comply with the instructions contained in the demand letter. Thus, allotment was cancelled. The case of the petitioner did not fall under the category of double allotment. Status quo was directed by this Court in respect of Flat No. D-5 /10, Sector-15, Rohini and not for Flat No. 10, Pocket-5, Block-B, Sector-5, Rohini. The petition filed by Kanwar Bhan Malik was dismissed in default on 19.2.1996. The petitioner has approached this Court after 9 years of cancellation of the flat and the petition being highly belated is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of laches.