SUMITRA KAWLRA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.3.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. 842 of 1996 dismissing the writ petition in limine. The petitioner preferred the writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for allotment of a flat to the petitioner at Vasant Kunj at the cost as per her original allotment dated 1.4.1985. It was stated in the writ petition that the petitioner registered herself under the SFS in category III for allotment of a flat and made an initial deposit of Rs. 15,000/- with the respondents vide receipt No. 11099. On 1.4.1985 a draw of lots was held in which the petitioner was alleged to have been allotted with a flat at Vasant Kunj but the petitioner was never informed about the aforesaid allotment. However, on 17.3.1989 the petitioner again applied for allotment of a flat under the scheme of Delhi Development Authority for the retired Government servants and in pursuance of the said application the petitioner was allotted a flat No. E-365, Trilokpuri, near Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Subsequent to the aforesaid allotment the petitioner deposited the full amount of Rs. 2,74,914.50. When the petitioner went to submit the papers for her Trilokpuri flat she came to know of the allotment of a flat in her name at Vasant Kunj. She approached the officer of DDA for restoration of the aforesaid flat at Vasant Kunj. In spite of her best efforts since the respondents failed and/or neglected to allot the said flat at Vasant Kunj to the petitioner the aforesaid writ petition was filed.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment/order dismissed the writ petition holding that the present is not a case to the interfered with in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A reading of the impugned judgment/order would show that the learned Single Judge, on consideration of the records found that the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as there has been no plausible explanation offered by the petitioner in respect of the inordinate delay in preferring the writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner came to know about the alleged allotment of flat at Vasant Kunj in the year 1989 and the writ petition was preferred only on 23.2.1996. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case held that the petitioner is not entitled to seek to unsettle the settled things after a long period of 11 years. On consideration of the evidence on record the learned Single Judge further found that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the documentary evidence on record to show that the alleged allotment of a flat at Vasant Kunj was made in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, there was no question of the petitioner being entitled to have a flat allotted at the price prevailing on 1.4.1985.

(3.) APART from the aforesaid noting the learned counsel for the petitioner could not draw our attention to any other documentary evidence to support his contention that the appellant/petitioner was allotted a flat at Vasant Kunj in pursuance of draw of lots held on 1.4.1985. Therefore, we are called upon to examine whether the aforesaid noting could be said to be an allotment order of a flat Vasant Kunj in favour of the appellant/petitioner. A bare reading of the aforesaid noting would show that by the aforesaid order the respondent never intended to allot a flat in favour of the appellant/petitioner at Vasant Kunj in pursuance of any draw of lots. On the other hand the letter dated 23.7.1990 written on behalf of Delhi Development Authority to the appellant/petitioner, a copy of which is on record, would show that no allotment of a flat was made to the appellant/petitioner in Vasant Kunj against her FDR No. 11099. In fact the said allotment of the flat was made in favour of Shri Arvind Kumar Mohindra, in respect of File No. 126 (5341) 83/VK/III and having registration No. 11099 and FDR No. 1153. The contents of the aforesaid letter, therefore, clearly prove and establish that in fact no flat was allotted to the petitioner at Vesant Kunj at any point of time, and it appears that the appellant/petitioner was under a misapprehension that such a flat was allotted to her. It is appropriate to state that the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpinder Kumar Jain, 1994(3) R.R.R. 723 : JT 1994(6) 292 (SC), it has been held by the Supreme Court that a right to a flat arises only on the communication of a letter of allotment. Since the appellant/petitioner failed to place before us any evidence in respect of communication of any letter of allotment of a flat at Vasant Kunj in her favour, following the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that no right had accrued, to the appellant/petitioner for the allotment of a flat at Vasant Kunj as is claimed in the present proceedings. As a matter of fact as there was no allotment of any flat in favour of the appellant as is disclosed from the aforesaid record, there was no accrual of any right in favour of her.