Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed for seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to resettle the Petitioner by allotment of alternative piece of land in lieu of demolished T-hut, the Single Judge Bench of Dharmesh Sharma*, J., held that the “Alternative Allotment-cum-Demand Letter” was made in 15-04-2006 and it had been lapsed long time back, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches.
Factual Matrix-
In the present case, the Petitioner, being a daily wages labourer had been residing in T-huts at Jhuggi No.770, Kanchan Puri, New Delhi-02 since decades with his family. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was carrying out surveys since 1998 under Master Plan of Delhi 2021 and were demarcating areas and identifying individuals for rehabilitation and resettlement, the process was duly concluded in 2006, involving relocating the residents in exchange for the demolition of their existing dwellings, subject to the payment of a license fee.
The DDA on 15-04-2006 issued an “Alternative Allotment-cum-Demand Letter” to the Petitioner, subsequently to the offer, the Petitioner demolished his T-huts and submitted the required documents along with an affidavit within the prescribed timeframe as per the letter’s directives and made a payment of Rs. 14,000/- to the Respondent 1 as license fee, despite of this DDA failed to fulfil its obligation to rehabilitate and resettle them by providing alternative housing.
The Petitioner then filed an RTI dated 05-02-2015, in reply to which the Petitioner received letter from DDA, stating that no plot had been allotted against the said Jhuggi no. and that allotment would be done only to eligible Jhuggi residents by the constituted committee.
On 31-03-2015, the Deputy Director and PIO for Land and Management at DDA refused to provide information about the allocation of an alternative plot in response to an RTI application, citing Section 11(3) of the RTI Act. The petitioner, facing housing difficulties, repeatedly visited the respondent’s office in 2020, 2021, and 2022 but received no help. Aggrieved by this, the present petition was filed.
Analysis
The Court observed that the petition was barred by time, as the demolishing of hutments was way back in the year 2006 and the ultimate allotment-cum-demand letter issued by the DDA dated 15.04.2006 merely conferred a limited right upon the petitioner to get licence at some demarcated site for a period of five years only, and that period has since lapsed.
The Court further observed that, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was a discretionary relief that could be denied on account of delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner in approaching to the Court, while referring to Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal (2011) 5 SCC 394 and Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551, the Supreme Court reiterated itself that ”delay defeats equity and if there was a laxity on the part of the petitioner to assert his legal rights thereby allowing the cause of action to drift away, the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction should not rekindle the lapsed cause of action.”
The Court held that, the offer made to the petitioner vide proposal dated 15-04-2006 lapsed long time back and the present petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches.
[Md. Shamim v. Delhi Development Authority (DDA), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3810, decided on 22-05-2024]
*Judgement by- Justice Dharmesh Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Surabhi Sanchita, Pratap Singh, Advocates.
For Respondent: Ajay Vikram Singh, Advocate for DUSIB;
Karn Bhardwaj, ASC for GNCTD, Shubham Singh, Rajat Gaba, Advocates for R2;
Kritika Gupta, Advocate for DDA.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
