W.P.(C)6631/2011 Page 1 of 6 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13th September, 2011 + W.P.(C) 6631/2011 & CM No.13388/2011 (for stay) % MAHESH CHAND GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nanda Kinra, Adv. Versus DDA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petitioner was a registrant for an MIG flat in the New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS) of the respondent DDA of the year 1979. He claims, to have given is residential as well as occupational address in the registration form; to have changed his residence in the year 1989 and given intimation to the respondent DDA of the same; to have from a public W.P.(C)6631/2011 Page 2 of 6 advertisement published by the respondent DDA in the year 2004 learnt that all the flats under the said scheme in the MIG category had been allotted; to have then in the year 2004 itself contacted the respondent DDA and having been told that in the year 1993 an allotment was made to him and a Demand-cum-Allotment letter issued but which was received back undelivered. It was/is the case of the petitioner that the said Demand-cum- Allotment letter was sent at his old residential address only despite intimation of change and that said letter was not sent at the occupational address though furnished. The petitioner claims to have met the officers of the respondent DDA on 29th March, 2004 in this regard and having complained of non-receipt of Demand-cum-Allotment letter. 2. The petitioner thereafter, at least on paper did not take any further action till 13th October, 2008 when an other representation is stated to have been sent. After waiting for another two years, on 22nd September, 2010 another representation is stated to have been sent and in response whereto it is claimed that the respondent DDA verified the documents of the petitioner. W.P.(C)6631/2011 Page 3 of 6 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the representations, no allotment has been made to him. He seeks a mandamus directing the respondent DDA to allot to him an MIG flat at Jhilmil where the allotment in the year 1993 was made and at the cost then prevailing. 4. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the Policy contained in the office order dated 25th February, 2005 of the respondent DDA and on, order dated 24th February, 2010 in W.P.(C) 10308/2009 titled Vijander Kumar Verma v. DDA, order dated 6th February, 2007 in W.P.(C) 15002/2006 titled Hirdayapal Singh v. DDA, order dated 2nd September, 2008 in W.P.(C) 1373/2006 titled V.N. Bharat v. DDA, order dated 7th November, 2007 in W.P.(C) 119/2007 titled Abhay Prakash Sinha v. DDA, order dated 28th January, 2008 in W.P.(C) 266/2007 titled Usha Saikia v. DDA, order dated 24th February, 2011 in SLP (Civil)CC No.13626/2008 titled DDA v. Abhay Prakash Sinha and order dated 24th February, 2011 in W.P.(C) 2624/2010 titled Bhupinder Singh Vohra v. DDA. 5. In all the aforesaid cases, the petitioners had approached the Court W.P.(C)6631/2011 Page 4 of 6 immediately on coming to know of the dispatch of the Demand-cum- Allotment letter at the wrong address. Even if there was any mistakes/error on the part of the respondent DDA in the present case in sending the Demand-Cum-Allotment letter at the old address and/or in not sending it at the occupational address of the petitioner, the fact remains that the petitioner in the year 2004 learnt of the same. This writ petition has been filed after more than seven years. The representations which the petitioner claims to have made are also far spread out as aforesaid. 6. There is absolutely no explanation in the writ petition for the delay in preferring the petition. The only case made out is that since in other cases of dispatch of Demand-cum-Allotment letter at wrong address allotments were made, the petitioner is also entitled to allotment. 7. Upon the same being put to the counsel for the petitioner he refers to the order dated 24th February, 2011 in Bhupinder Singh Vohra (supra) where in para 8 in response to the objection of laches, it was held that since the petitioner therein had been waiting for two decades and had filed the petition immediately on coming to know of the dispatch of the Allotment- W.P.(C)6631/2011 Page 5 of 6 cum-Demand letter at the wrong address, the question of laches did not arise. 8. However as aforesaid the same is not the position here. Moreover, the explanation for delay and laches has to be furnished and the petitioner cannot rely on the condonation of delay in some other case without setting out any facts of his own. 9. This petition filed in the year 2011, when the cause of action admittedly accrued in the year 2004 is thus found to be highly belated and barred by laches, waiver and acquiescence. There is nothing to show that the matter in the interregnum was under consideration of DDA. 10. I have considered whether merely for the reason of the petitioner having waited since the year 1979, his case should still be considered. I am however not inclined to do so. The number of flats are limited; if this Court were to direct allotment to the petitioner, notwithstanding the petitioner having slept over his rights and the claim of the petitioner in law having become barred by time, the same will be at the cost of some other applicants under some other scheme and allotment in whose favour would W.P.(C)6631/2011 Page 6 of 6 be delayed/deferred for the reason of the direction if issued to accommodate the petitioner. The transaction was but a transaction for sale/purchase of immovable property; even though time is not of essence, the purchaser cannot claim the property after an unusually long time and for which there is no explanation whatsoever. 11. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that the petitioner is willing to pay the price of 1993 together with interest at 12% per annum in accordance with the Policy contained of the office order dated 25th February, 2005. However the said offer of the petitioner cannot create a right in favour of the petitioner which has stood extinguished. Nothing in the order dated 25th February, 2005 also is found to entitle the petitioner to such relief after long lapse of time. 12. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 pp..