Full Text
W.P.(C) No.1366/2014
Date of Decision: 12th December, 2014 RAJ KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ramakant Tripathi, Adv.
Through: Ms.Raavi Birbal, Adv. for R-1.
Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. for DDA.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a writ petition by virtue of which the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to allot a flat either in Dwarka or in the alternative anywhere in Delhi as per availability of flats after setting aside the letter/order dated 08.05.2013.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also gone through the record. 2014:DHC:7018
3. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that she deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- vide DD No.796325 drawn on State Bank of India along with Application No.31869 with respondent No.1 for allotment of a flat under the Janta Housing Registration Scheme, 1996 (‘the Scheme’ for short)
4. The petitioner was allotted Flat No.175, 3rd Floor, Sector 16-B, Dwarka, with respect to which she is purported to have learnt on 28.05.2008. The said flat was cancelled on 21.08.2002 along with the entire draw of lots on account of representation by some of the allottees on the ground that it did not contain a kitchen. It is stated that an advertisement in this regard was issued in the newspaper wherein it was categorically stated that those persons who want the allotment to be made along with a kitchen, they must apply afresh while as the rest could take the existing flat.
5. The petitioner claims that she wrote letters on 05.01.2008, 12.08.2009, 24.05.2010, 04.01.2011, 15.04.2011 and 26.05.2012. The said representations, according to the petitioner, were responded twice by the respondent/DDA vide communications dated 28.05.2008 & 16.06.2011, but no favourable response was given to the petitioner with respect to allotment of the flat. On 25.11.2012, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.7352/2012 which was disposed of on 29.11.2012 by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation within a period of two weeks to the respondent/DDA stating therein as to when the intimation card disclosing the priority number was received by the petitioner. The respondent/DDA was directed to dispose of representation of the petitioner preferably within a period of four weeks, with fate of the same being made known to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. The petitioner was further given liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law if she still felt aggrieved.
6. Consequently, petitioner moved representations dated 12.12.2012 & 13.03.2013, which were disposed of vide the impugned order dated 08.05.2013. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the order has preferred the present writ petition.
7. The respondents were present in response to the advance copy having been given. It has been pointed out that the correspondence which has been placed by the petitioner on record clearly shows that the Scheme had been closed by the DDA long back and the DDA had also published an advertisement in leading news papers seeking options from the allottees of the said draw whether they wished to continue with the present allotment or their registration can be considered for next draw. The allottees who had provided options were considered the next allotment and since draw was cancelled by advertising in leading news papers, no individual communication was sent to the allottees. Since nothing was heard from the petitioner, her allotment was cancelled.
8. As per her own version, the petitioner is stated to have woken up, after the draw of lots having taken place on 08.04.2002, in the year 2008 and even if it is assumed to be true, she ought to have approached the court expeditiously for redressal of her grievance to get the flat rather she chose to make representations to the respondent/DDA on various dates from 2008 to 2012, as stated above. A person who is genuinely interested in the allotment of a flat would not wait endlessly and keep on moving representations to the respondent/DDA repeatedly. The law does not help those persons who rake up stale claims or are not vigilant to protect their interest.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner has been grossly negligent in coming to the court as expeditiously as possible and, therefore, there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in coming to the court and seek allotment of a flat in respect of which she was declared successful. The prayer of the petitioner for allotment of a flat is totally hit by delay and laches.
10. Accordingly, the present petition which is totally misconceived, is dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. December 12, 2014 dm