Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2605 (DEL)

SANTOSH KUMAR v. D. D. A.

2007-10-08

Sanjiv Khanna

body2007
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th april, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants-petitioners on the ground that the appellants-petitioners have failed to make out a case for issuance of a direction to the respondent for allotment of plot of land to the appellants. ( 2 ) THE appellants in the writ petition had challenged the letter dated 12th November, 2004 issued by the Delhi Development Authority informing them of the cancellation of the allotment of plot No. 20, Pocket 6, Sector A-10 measuring 209 square metres in the Narela Residential Scheme. In the writ petition further prayer was made for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 21st February, 2006 issued by the Delhi Development Authority informing the appellant-petitioner No. 1 that the competent authority had rejected his request for revoking the cancellation. ( 3 ) THE Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide letter dated 31st July, 1989 had recommended allotment of an alternative plot to the appellants and a letter to that effect was sent to the Delhi Development authority. The aforesaid benefit was given to the appellants in view of the extant scheme for allotment of an alternative plot to a person, whose land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The said persons are, however, required to pay premium. The respondent cancelled the allotment given to the appellants of plot No. 20, Pocket 6, Sector A-10 measuring 209 square metres narela Residential Scheme on the ground that two earlier allotments of land made in favour of the appellants at Rohini and Narela were cancelled due to non-payment of the premium towards the aforesaid plots and in terms of the policy of the Delhi Development Authority, a person recommended for allotment of an alternative plot is to be given three opportunities/chances. ( 4 ) THE respondent herein had issued an allotment letter in favour of the appellants on 15th January, 1993, which was the first opportunity/chance. However, as premium was not paid, the aforesaid allotment was cancelled. Thereafter, the appellants were again given another opportunity and were allotted plot at Narela in a draw of lots held on 13th November, 1999 and a second demand-cum-allotment letter dated 31st December, 1989 was issued. However, as premium was not paid, the aforesaid allotment was cancelled. Thereafter, the appellants were again given another opportunity and were allotted plot at Narela in a draw of lots held on 13th November, 1999 and a second demand-cum-allotment letter dated 31st December, 1989 was issued. However, the appellants did not pay the premium and due to default in depositing the demanded amount, the aforesaid allotment was thereafter again cancelled after issuing a show cause notice. ( 5 ) BY way of third chance, the appellants were allotted plot No. 20, pockets 6, Sector A-10, Narela measuring 209 square metres in the draw of lots held on 29th May, 2003 and a demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to them on 26th June, 2003. Payment for the said plot was to be made in installments as per details mentioned therein. The appellants failed to deposit any amount in terms of the aforesaid schedule. ( 6 ) THE policy of allotment of alternative land also provides that in case of three opportunities and the last chance, no restoration is to be allowed beyond a period of 360 days. It is further stated therein that on expiry of maximum period of 360 days, the allotment would stand automatically cancelled. In the present case the demand-cum allotment letter was received by the appellant No. 1 himself on 9th January, 2004 and, therefore, on expiry of 360 days, the aforesaid allotment automatically came to be cancelled. Demanded amount came to be deposited on 10th November, 2005, which is much beyond the stipulated period for deposit of the amount and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Delhi Development Authority to enable them to exercise their power of restoration. Even otherwise, we find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge holding that there were repeated defaults on the part of the appellants to make payment in terms of the allotments made by the Delhi Development Authority. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.