Delhi High Court
Bansi Lal Malhotra vs The Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 23 December, 2014
Author: V.K. Shali
Bench: V.K. Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) No.1750/2014 & C.M. No.3655/2014
Decided on : 23rd December, 2014
BANSI LAL MALHOTRA ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarsh Menon & Mr. Y. Lokesh,
Advocates.
Versus
THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS
...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey &
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the letter dated 10.6.2013 by virtue of which the prayer of the petitioner for mutation of his name in place of his mother was rejected by the respondent/DDA on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the mutation documents within a period of two years from the date stipulated as well as failed to deposit the amount pursuant to the allotment-cum- demand letter.
W.P. (C) No.1750/2014 Page 1 of 5
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the mother of the petitioner had applied for a Janta flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, and the same was registered in 1980. She did not hear anything from the respondent/DDA for a period of 28 years. It is alleged that the mother of the petitioner died on 5.5.1994 and the petitioner was transferred to Ferozepur on 30.4.1998. On 4.7.2000, he was again transferred to Delhi. It is alleged that his elder sister, Maya Devi, was seriously ill and she remained admitted in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where she expired on 20.7.2000. The petitioner has contended that on the officials of the DDA being informed about this, they informed him that he should wait and he will be allotted a flat in draw of lots. The petitioner kept on waiting and in the year 2007, the petitioner made a representation that he has not been allotted any flat and, therefore, he had sought mutation of the flat in his name in the year 2007 when the mother of the petitioner was declared to have been allotted Flat No.71, Second Floor, Pocket B-1, Type B, Loknayak Puram, Delhi, on the basis of draw of lots held on 27.9.2007.
3. The petitioner applied for mutation; however, the request for mutation was rejected by the DDA on two grounds. Firstly, he did not W.P. (C) No.1750/2014 Page 2 of 5 pay the requisite fee and secondly, the mutation had to be got done within a period of two years from the date of death of the person on account of whose death, the applicant/petitioner is claiming mutation. Accordingly, it was said that as the writ has been filed by the petitioner with inordinate delay and latches consequently, no relief deserves to be given to the petitioner and the writ deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record. There is no dispute about the fact that the mother of the petitioner applied under NPRS in the year 1979 and later on she got her Janta flat converted into an LIG flat. This factum of conversion was intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.10.1989 and she was given a fresh registration No.62127. As and when the priority number of the petitioner matured, her name was included in the draw of lots. On 27.9.2007, a draw of lots was held in respect of various categories of persons, who had missed out on account of the earlier draw. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioner approached the Director of the respondent, who informed that his priority has been declared and he has been allotted an LIG flat. However, the petitioner could not apply for mutation till the August, 2000, and the W.P. (C) No.1750/2014 Page 3 of 5 petitioner was constrained to initiate an action in court for allotment of the flat.
5. The settled legal position is that although the principles of Limitation Act do not apply to the writ jurisdiction but the broader principle of delay and latches is applicable to the writ jurisdiction. A person who is seeking redressal from the court, he must come at the earliest possible opportunity without any loss of time.
6. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner's mother was registered for Janta flat way back in the year 1979. After a decade, the petitioner's Janta flat was converted at her request to an LIG flat. The petitioner's mother died in the year 1994 but till 2007, no intimation was given by the petitioner or any other legal heir about the death of the registrant. It is only when the draw of lots was held that the petitioner wanted to take advantage of the said draw of lots and sought mutation of the registration in his own name. Even this mutation was sought by the petitioner after expiry of more than two years from the date of death of the registrant. The DDA has a policy that in case some registrant dies, the legal heirs of the registrant must apply for substitution of their name or names in accordance with law within a W.P. (C) No.1750/2014 Page 4 of 5 period of two years. In the instant case, as mutation was not sought within a period of two years from the date of death of the registrant, consequently, the respondents rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for mutation.
7. In addition to this, the petitioner has also not deposited the cost of the flat pursuant to the demand-cum-allotment letter which was purported to be issued in the name of his mother. There is an inordinate delay and latches in filing the application with the respondent/DDA for mutation, therefore, no ground for interference by this court is made out.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 23, 2014 'AA' W.P. (C) No.1750/2014 Page 5 of 5