LPA 475/2010 Page 1 of 4 54 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 475/2010 VILAIET JAFRI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 16th July, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No MANMOHAN, J (Oral) CM 12252/2010 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. LPA 475/2010 Page 2 of 4 CM 12253/2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 40 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. LPA 475/2010 1. The present Letters Patent appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 26th April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1753/2010 2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 3. The learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “8. Whereas in this case petitioner became aware of the allotment in the year 1994 and thereafter slept over the matter and filed this petition only in the year 2010. 9. The writ petition shows that petitioner had approached the DDA in the year 1994 as also in the year 2000 and 2005, but he did not get any satisfactory answer. xxx xxx xxx 11. Taking into consideration that the petitioner gained knowledge of the allotment in his favour in the year 1994 there is no satisfactory explanation, except the submission that when the petitioner approached the DDA he was LPA 475/2010 Page 3 of 4 informed that policy decision is also to be taken in the matter and he would be informed about the same. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay in approaching this Court, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.” 4. The admitted facts are that the appellant had in 1981 registered himself with DDA’s for allotment of a MIG category plot. Though according to DDA, appellant was intimated in 1991, that he had been allotted a plot in the Rohini Scheme, appellant claims that he did not receive the said communication. However, appellant admits that he became aware of the allotment in the year, 1994. 5. Mr. Dilip Singh, learned counsel for appellant contended that there was no delay in filing the Writ petition as the appellant had been repeatedly making representation to the respondent/Delhi Development Authority and was waiting for their response. He further stated that as Delhi Development Authority’s Rohini Scheme is still open, appellant should be allotted a MIG category plot. 6. In our opinion, if the appellant became aware of the allotment in the year, 1994 and if there were some issues with DDA, he should have asserted his legal right within a reasonable time period. We agree with the learned Single Judge that in the event, this Court were to entertain the appellant’s Writ petition after a lapse of 16 years, it would not only LPA 475/2010 Page 4 of 4 create confusion but also cause public inconvenience and inflict hardship and injustice to third parties who were in the waiting list. 7. Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine but with no order as to costs. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 16, 2010 js