Karan Singh vs Govt. of NCT of DELHI and Another

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Respondent No. 1 GNCTD had on 9th September, 1991 made a recommendation for allotment of a 80 sq. yds. residential plot to the mother of the Petitioner in lieu of acquired land. In pursuance of the said recommendation, an allotment was made by the Respondent No. 2 DDA on 4th April, 2002. However, the said allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 17th December, 2003 upon failure of the Petitioner, as the legal heir of his mother, to make payment demanded from the Petitioner. The Petitioner has filed this petition impugning the said cancellation dated 17th December, 2003 and alternatively seeking mandamus for inclusion of his name in the draw of lots for future allotment. It is contended that even though the name of the Petitioner is at serial No. 3 in the list of Waiting Recommendees for 80 sq. yds. plot but allotment is not being made to him.

As far as the challenge in this petition to the cancellation of 17th December, 2003, made after eight years is concerned, the same is not maintainable on the principles of laches, acquiescence and waiver. No. satisfactory explanation for the delay in making the challenge has been rendered. It is highly unlikely that the said plot would be still available for allotment to the Petitioner.

As far as the claim of the Petitioner for inclusion of his name in the draw of lots to be next held by the Respondent No. 2 DDA is concerned, the counsel for the Respondent No. 2 DDA appearing on advance notice states that as per the policy of the DDA, a second chance will be given to the Petitioner by putting the Petitioner at the bottom of the seniority list pursuant to the cancellation of 17th December, 2003 and allotment would then be considered in accordance with judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Rama Nand v. UOI AIR 1994 Del 29. It is contended that the reliance by the Petitioner on the list filed as Annexure P-6 where his name finds mention at serial No. 3 is misconceived inasmuch as the same is not the seniority or the priority list and the name of the Petitioner would be considered as per the cancellation of 17th December, 2003 and not as per the date of the recommendation.

I am satisfied with the explanation rendered by the counsel for the Respondent No. 2 DDA. No. direction for inclusion of the name in the next draw of lots can be issued. It has been held by the Full Bench in Rama Nand (supra) that the Petitioner has No. absolute right and only has a right to be considered and the Petitioner having already forfeited his place cannot now be placed above other recommendees in the seniority / priority list.

There is thus No. merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No. order as to costs.