Meena Kanodia vs Delhi Development Authority

Hima Kohli, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/DDA to allot a plot admeasuring 90 sq. meters as per her priority number in MIG category under the Rohini Phase IV Residential Scheme, 1981.

It is the case of the petitioner that she was registered under HUDCO Transfer quota for allotment of a plot under the aforesaid Scheme. The registrants were allowed to exercise option of allotment of 60 or 90 sq. meters plots under the MIG category. The petitioner exercised her option for a 90 sq. meters plot. However, she was not declared successful in the draw of lots held prior to the year 1989. In the year 1999, due to limited availability of land, Government of India decided to limit the size of the plot to be allotted to the remaining applicants under MIG category to 60 sq. meters. The petitioner''s priority finally matured on 16.6.2003. Pertinently, it was the first draw of lots held by the respondent/DDA after the decision taken by the Government restricting the size of the plot for allotment to 60 sq. meters. It is an admitted case that while conducting the draw of lots held on 16.6.2003, some priorities, including that of the petitioner, were missed by the computer due to furnishing incomplete date of birth of the registrants at the time of submission of their applications for registration.

The aforesaid position was duly intimated to the husband of the petitioner in a public hearing. He was also informed that the petitioner would be allotted a plot in the next draw of lots. Thereafter, a draw of lots was held on 5.1.2004 and pursuant thereto, the petitioner was allotted a plot of land admeasuring 60 sq. meters at the pre-determined rate as on 16.6.2003, the date on which her priority was missed. A demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the petitioner on 27.1.2004 calling upon her to deposit the first installment by 27.3.2004 and the second installment by 26.5.2004. Instead of depositing the amounts in terms of the aforesaid demand-cum-allotment letter, the petitioner started corresponding with the respondent/DDA and demanded that she be allotted a plot measuring 90 sq. meters and the plot admeasuring 60 sq. meters allotted to her be withdrawn by the respondent/DDA.

Vide letter dated 24.6.2004 (Annexure P-5), the respondent/DDA had informed the petitioner that after 29.3.1996, no applicant could be allotted a plot of 90 sq. meters and that the petitioner was also not eligible for such an allotment. It was however stated that though her allotment stood cancelled according to the terms and conditions laid down in the demand-cum-allotment letter bearing block dates 19.1.2004 to 27.1.2004, in case she needed further time to make payments of premium of the allotted plot, she could be granted an additional period of 180 days from the due date of installment, subject to payment of restoration charges and interest in case she would apply for the same. Despite receiving the aforesaid communication addressed by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner, she failed to apply for restoration of the plot. Nor did she deposit any part of the principal amount or interest in that regard. As a result, a notice to show cause dated 20.9.2004 (Annexure P-6) was issued by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner calling upon her to show cause within a period of 15 days as to why the allotment that had been made in her favour, should not stand automatically cancelled, as she had not applied to the DDA for extension of time, in terms of the earlier letter dated 24.06.2004.

The next letter that the petitioner seeks to rely upon is placed at Annexure P-7 to the writ petition. The said letter is undated and does not bear any proof of receipt thereof. In the said letter, the petitioner had stated that she could not be forced to pay restoration charges and interest and her case may be considered without deposit of such amounts. 6. At Annexure P-8 to the writ petition, is a letter dated 3.2.2006, addressed by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner informing her that her registration had been cancelled due to non-payment within the stipulated period and the earnest money would be refunded to her upon her submitting various documents, as mentioned in the said letter. Despite the aforesaid clear and categorical intimation of cancellation to the petitioner, she did not initiate any legal measures by approaching the court of law against the aforesaid cancellation letter issued by the respondent/DDA. Instead, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner continued corresponding with the respondent/DDA and had been requesting that a plot of 90 sq. meters be allotted to her and that she could not be called upon to pay the restoration charges and interest in respect of the plot measuring 60 sq. meters allotted to her later on.

The fallacy of the aforesaid argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that parleys between the parties cannot be treated as a substitute for availing legal remedies. The petitioner has not been able to show any document to establish as to whether she had taken any legal measures upon receipt of the letter dated 24.6.2004 issued by the respondent/DDA or even for that matter, the subsequent cancellation letter dated 3.2.2006 addressed by the respondent/DDA to her. After waiting for a period of eight years, if reckoned from 24.06.2004, and over six years, if reckoned from 03.02.2008, the petitioner has now chosen to approach this Court for seeking restoration of the plot in question, which is impermissible. The petitioner has also failed to set out the steps taken by her during all this period to pay the restoration charges and interest as demanded by the respondent/DDA as per its policy. Further, for all these years, the petitioner did not deposit even a penny towards the installments as demanded by the respondent/DDA in respect of the plot measuring 60 sq. meters.

It is also pertinent to note that in September, 2011, the petitioner had approached the Delhi Legal Services Authority seeking allotment of the plot from the respondent/DDA, which was turned down on 5.9.2011, with an observation made by the Member Secretary that DDA could not be directed to give any benefit to the petitioner when the Government had changed its policy and had decided to allot only 60 sq. meters of plot instead of 90 sq. meters of plot, as long back as in the year 1996. Simultaneously, the petitioner''s request for regularization was also turned down after examining the policy for regularization submitted by the respondent/DDA.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine, along with the pending applications, as being devoid of merits.