Jyotiprakash v. DDA

1. The writ petition has been filed pleading that the petitioner was residing in a Jhuggi at Kalyanpuii Market, Delhi wherefrom he was dispossessed; that he applied for an alternative flat and deposited a suin of ?3,000/- with the respondent DDA on 11*'' June, 1992; that he was again called upon (no document is produced in this regard) to pay a fuither of sum ^3,000/- which was also deposited with the respondent DDA on 26"' May, 1993; that the then Slum Wing ofthe respondent DDA vide letter dated 23"^ April, 1993 gave no objection to grant of electiicity connection to the petitioner at plot/flat no.A-65, Central Market, Kalyanpuii, Delhi; that he was allotted flat no.B-1/239, New Kondli, Delhi but the possession ofthe 1/f'b 2011:DHC:17794 said flat has not been delivered to the petitioner inspite of repeated reminders. The only relief claimed in the petition is of a direction to the respondent DDA to hand over possession of flat no.B-1/239, New Kondli, Delhi or any other flat in the vicinity in lieu thereofto the petitioner.

2. The petition came up fnst before this Court on 25"^ Mai'ch, 2011 when the counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an affidavit giving better paiticulars. Such an affidavit was filed and on 30^'' May, 2011 adjournment was sought to move an application to implead Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (being successor of the Slum Wing of the DDA) as a party to this petition;however no suchapphcationhas been filed.

3. The petitioner along with the petition or the affidavit giving better paiticulars has not filed any document before this Court showing allotment of the flat of which possession is claimed. The counsel for the petitioner is also unable to show any reference whatsoever to the said flat in any of the documents filed before this Court. He is also unable to state as to from where the number ofthe said flat was obtained by the petitioner. During the course of hearing the counsel for the petitioner has handed over two other documents which ai'e taken on record but which also do not show any such allotment in favour of the petitioner. Without the petitioner making out a case before this Couit of allotment of the flat of which possession is claimed, the writ petition cannot be entertained. 2/-

4. The counsel for the petitioner again seeks adjournment to gather further documents. However the matter cannot be kept pending like this. The petitionoughtto be complete beforethe same is filed beforethis Court. The petitionerherein has failed to do so inspiteofoppoitunity also.

5. In the circumstances, the petition is rejected. However ifthe petitioner is able to lay his hands on any documents showing allotment of the flat to hn-n he shall be entitled to file a fi'esh petition for the same relief as claimed in this petition but disclosing therein about thepresent petition and theorder made herein. No order as to costs. JULY 06, 2011 pp..

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J 3/-