R K SINGH Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. In challenge in this writ petition is the decision of the respondent dda in refusing to condone the delay in making payment by the petitioner in respect of plot No. 58, Pocket-7, Block-B, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi. The petitioner was made allotment of the aforesaid plot by the DDA after the petitioner had preferred a writ petition in this Court, being W. P (C)No. 1608/2002, and on the making of a statement by counsel for the DDA that the name of the petitioner would be included in a draw of lots to be held soon. Since the learned Single Judge did not determine the rate at which the allotment ought to be made, the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent appeal. According to the petitioner, his priority had matured in the year 1989, and the rate that the respondent could charge is the rate prevalent in the year 1989. The allotment was made during the pendency of the LPA, but at the rate prevalent on the date of issuance of allotment letter dated 09. 02. 2003.

(2.) THE aforesaid contention of the petitioner was rejected by a Division bench of this Court in L. P. A. No. 689/2002 on 22. 05. 2003. Not satisfied, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition being SLP No. 10869/2003. The supreme Court vide order dated 19. 06. 2003 directed that the allotment made to the petitioner be not cancelled by the respondent. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, on 07. 07. 2005 the petitioner deposited the amount demanded by the respondent at the rate prevalent on the date of allotment. Thereafter, the petitioner withdrew the Special Leave petition and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 25. 11. 2005. The petitioner demanded the respondent to communicate the interest payable by him on delayed payment and also demanded possession of the plot. The respondent issued a communication dated 29. 06. 2006 refusing the request of the petitioner on the ground that the payment had been made by way of 13 different bank drafts through 7 different persons other than the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid decision of the DDA by filing W. P. (C) No. 11331/2006, which was allowed by the Court on 13. 11. 2006. It was directed that the respondent should reconsider the issue after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to explain the source of the funds deposited by him. The respondent thereafter issued a notice dated 07. 02. 2007 to explain the circumstances in which payment had been made by seven different persons on his behalf. The petitioner responded to the same by furnishing a reply.

(3.) FROM the record of the respondent produced by the petitioner it appears that the Principal Commissioner made a noting to the effect that the explanation furnished did not completely satisfy the position with regard to the payment made on the petitioner's behalf. However, he noted that this may not be held against the petitioner for not regularizing the delay for making payment. On the aspect of regularization of delay of over one year in making the payment, it was noticed that the delay in depositing the amount was 844 days, He noted that there is no extremely deserving ground for condonation of delay. He observed that the petitioner did not find merit in his own case on the issue of costing of the plot, and therefore, he had withdrawn the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. This noting was accepted by the Lt. Governor. The petitioner was thereafter communicated the impugned decision vide communication dated 24. 08. 2007.