BIMLA DEVI CHURIWAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant LPA has been preferred by the appellant, challenging the Judgment dtd. 17/11/2022 passed in W.P.(C) 3624/2013 titled as Bimla Devi Churiwal v. Delhi Development Authority ('Impugned Judgment'), wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the same is barred by delay and laches.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal, that the Respondent/Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') in 1981 had launched the Rohini Residential Scheme for EWS/Janta, LIG and MIG category plots of land ('the Scheme"). The Appellant had applied under the scheme vide application No. 45461 dtd. 26/3/1981 to book an LIG plot admeasuring 32 square meters after depositing Rs.2,000.00 towards registration charges vide receipt No. 15202 dtd. 26/3/1981. Due to a large number of applicants, the DDA decided to allot priority numbers to pending registrants by a computerised draw and the Appellant was assigned priority no. 15452.

(3.) The DDA states that upon scrutinizing the application of the Appellant, it was found that the appellant had not submitted her income proof for the assessment year 1980-81. Therefore, the DDA vide letter dtd. 17/12/1982 requested her to deposit the same along with an affidavit undertaking as required in Brochure. It is stated that though the Appellant submitted her income proof for the assessment year 1981-1982, the said information was incomplete and the DDA vide letter dtd. 21/8/1984 requested her to furnish the income proof of the assessment year 1980-81 with full details of the Appellant and her spouse along with the income tax assessment for the assessment year 1981-82. This letter dtd. 21/8/1984 however was returned as undelivered with the postal authority"s remark 'not known" and the DDA cancelled the Registration No. 45461 and Priority No. 15452 assigned to the Appellant vide letter dtd. 14/4/1986 and the Appellant was requested to submit the FDR duly discharged so that action for refund of earnest money deposited by her could be initiated. As the appellant did not furnish the FDR, the DDA on 2/4/2008 again requested the Appellant to furnish the original FDR and other requisite documents to expedite refund of earnest money deposited. However, even this letter was returned as undelivered.