AJIT KUAMR BISWAS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to restore the allotment of shop No. 31 measuring 13.85 square meters in Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi and directing the respondent to handover the possession of the said shop to the petitioner in a time bound manner.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is claiming himself to be belonging to schedule caste and alleges that in the year 1985, he was sent for election duty to Mizoram where he met with a serious accident as a consequence of which he was hospitalized for a period of five years. The petitioner had to go through a surgery, after which he was examined by the Medical Board of All -India Institute of Medical Sciences and was declared handicapped with a disability certificate dated 2.11.1992. It has been stated that as the petitioner could not continue his employment after the aforesaid disability having been suffered, he made a request for allotment of a shop to the then Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. Vide letter dated 30.10.1985, the petitioner was informed by the Prime Minister's office that the DDA has approved the allotment of a shop to the petitioner. This was followed by a letter dated 24.12.1985 from the DDA wherein it was intimated to the petitioner that he has been allotted shop No. 31 in Chittaranjan Park and a demand -cum - allotment letter would follow. The petitioner did not receive the demand - cum -allotment letter as a consequence of which he applied for copies of relevant documents through RTI and managed to obtain the written intimation dated 14/16.5.1986 sent by the Vice chairman DDA to the Deputy Director, whereby it was directed to prepare the Demand -cum - Allotment letter so that the same could be collected by the petitioner on 19.05.1986. However, the letter was not ready on the said date and could not be obtained by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation for issuance of a Provisional Demand letter which was considered vide noting dated 7.6.1988. It has been stated by the petitioner that pursuant to the noting dated 7.6.1988, another noting on the file of the DDA was made and a resolution was passed and a demand -cum - allotment letter dated 13.6.1988 came to be issued to the petitioner on 4.7.1988 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,27,205/ -. On 22.9.1988, the petitioner received another demand letter from the DDA asking him to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,46,955/ - within a period of 30 days. The petitioner felt aggrieved by such an exorbitant amount of the cost of the shop being demanded by the DDA and vide letter dated 1988, he objected to the increase and the demand made by the DDA on the basis of the revision of the reserve price. The petitioner did not receive any reply to his letter, on the contrary, he received a cancellation letter dated 21.11.1990. The petitioner continued to visit the Ministry of Urban Development as well as DDA for restoration of the shop till 18.2.2000; however, the petitioner was not successful in the same. It has been alleged that on 25.1.2008, the petitioner managed to arrange the sum demanded and as the shop was still lying vacant, he deposited the said amount of Rs. 2,46,955/ -. The petitioner also approached the DDA for the purpose of consideration of his case sympathetically on humanitarian grounds but the DDA vide letter dated 30.4.2009, rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that there was no system of making allotment to the petitioner out of turn. On 5.11.2009, the petitioner requested the Lt. Governor being the Chairman of the DDA for reconsideration of the decision and he had already deposited the sum of Rs. 2,46,955/ -. Since the petitioner did not hear anything, on 17.5.2010 he again made a representation to the DDA. In July 2010, the petitioner attended the public hearing. On 29.7.2010, the petitioner made an application to the Vide Chairman, DDA and gave various instances when the DDA had restored the shop or the flat to the allottee in spite of repeated failure to make payment. A communication was received from the DDA after a year and a half that the letter dated 6.12.2012 sent by the petitioner seeking response to his representation during public hearing was disallowed and thus, the petitioner finally filed the present petition seeking the aforesaid relief on 16.3.2013.

(3.) The respondent filed its reply affidavit and raised objections to the maintainability of the writ petition itself on the ground of delay and latches. It has been stated that the allotment of the shop to the petitioner was cancelled on 22.11.1990 and since that date, no acknowledgement was issued to the petitioner from the respondent/DDA intimating that the petitioner was entitled to any shop. It is also stated that the petitioner has no legal right vested in him and in any case, even if a period of three years is counted from the cancellation of the shop, the said period would expire on 22.11.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that the shop having been cancelled almost 20 years back, could not be restored. It has also been stated that the respondent/DDA believe that the petitioner is not a resident of G -32/1, Shaheen Bagh, Kalindi Kunj Road, Okhla, New Delhi and the present petition has been filed as a motivated petition at the behest of some person, who is pushing up the present petitioner with a view to acquire the shop illegally. So far as the representation of the petitioner is concerned, it has been admitted that the petitioner has suffered a disability to the extent of 20 -25 per cent as certified by Dr. A.C. Mehra in his medical report; however, it is denied that the aforesaid disability of the petitioner in any way hampers in discharge of his normal duties. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the respondent has challenged the right of the petitioner to get the shop allotted. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder contesting the claim of the respondent and reiterating the plaint as has been averred in the writ petition.