t 20. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2007/2011 JYOTIPRAKASH Petitioner Through: Mr. S.N. Kalra & Mr. Tapan Paul, Advocate. versus DDA Respondent Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW ORDER % 06.07.2011 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 alternativeflat and depositeda suin of ?3,000/- with the respondentDDA 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 depositedwith the respondentDDA on 26"' May, 1993;thatthe then SlumWing ofthe respondentDDAvideletterdated 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 of the 1/- f'b Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 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 respondentDDA to hand over possessionof flat no.B-1/239,New Kondli, Delhi or any other flat in the vicinityin lieu thereofto the petitioner. 2. The petitioncameup fnstbeforethis Courton 25"^ Mai'ch,2011 when the counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an affidavit giving better paiticulars.Such an affidavitwas filed and on 30^'' May, 2011 adjournment was sought to move an application to implead Delhi Urban Shelter ImprovementBoard (being successorof the Slum Wing of the DDA) as a party to this petition;howeverno such apphcationhas 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 completebeforethe same is filed beforethis Court. The petitionerherein has failedto do so inspiteof oppoitunityalso. 5. In the circumstances,the petition is rejected. However if the petitioner is able to lay his hands on any documentsshowing allotmentof the flat to hn-n he shall be entitled to file a fi'eshpetition for the same relief as claimed in thispetitionbut disclosingthereinaboutthepresentpetitionand theorder made herein. No order as to costs. JULY 06, 2011 pp.. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J 3/-