The court emphasized the importance of timely action and found the petitioner's case to be barred by laches, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. - The petitioner vide the present petition seeks the quashing of the correspondence dated 16.11.2012 along with the letters referred therein vide which the petitioner was held ineligible for allotment under the scheme of consideration as per her seniority on the alleged ground of non supply of the income tax certificate in 1981 which the petitioner submits is false and seeks directions to the respondent the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot an alternative LIG plot to her in sector 36 or 37 Rohini at the cost prevalent in the year 2012, when her priority matured, but was not included in the draw held on 12.6.2012 and thus missed consideration by the respondent.

2. The petitioner has submitted that in the year 1981 the Respondent DDA launched a scheme known as the Rohini Residential Scheme for the EWS Janta, LIG and MIG category plots of land and that the petitioner applied vide application No. 45461 dated 26.03.1981 to book an LIG plot admeasuring 32 square meters for herself after depositing Rs.2000/- towards registration charges vide receipt No. 15202 dated 26.03.1981. The petitioner has submitted the copy of the receipt dated 26.03.1981 issued by the DDA of the deposit of the sum of Rs.2000/- by the applicant/petitioner under the Rohini LIG Scheme vide applicant No. 45461.

3. The petitioner has submitted further that initially the respondent adopted the methodology of including the names of all registrants of a particular category in a draw of lots as and when plots of that category were ready for allotment and whosoever was successful, would get the plot in his name but there being a large number of applicants but due to administrative problems in the year 1986 the DDA decided to allot priority numbers to the pending registrants and took, out a computerized draw of all pending registrants and at seriatim culled out names with reference to the registration number and assigned a priority number to each registrant and the applicant herein i.e. the petitioner was assigned priority No. 15452 by the DDA for the purpose of allotment and as and when the plots as per this methodology were ready and available for allotment the corresponding number of registrants in terms of their priority, were included in the draw of lots and plots were allotted.

4. The petitioner submitted that each time she visited the office of the DDA to enquire about the status of her allotment, she was returned back with the reply that her priority had not matured and that she thus waited patiently knowing that it would take time for her priority to mature. The petitioner submits that in the interregnum she changed her residential address to BH-45, Salt Lake City, Near Tank No.7, Kolkatta- 700 091 and intimated the same to the respondent DDA vide a letter dated 9.12.2004 and along with the same submitted a copy of the ration card and FDR and an acknowledgement receipt dated 9.12.2004 was also issued by the DDA .

5. The petitioner submits that sometime in the year 2012 when she came to Delhi she visited the office of the respondent DDA and enquired about the status of her priority and to her shock and dismay she learnt that 'priorities' immediately before her and after her had been allotted a plot in a draw held on 12.06.2012 but that the DDA had missed the consideration of the petitioner's name in the said draw due to its own fault and whimsical reasons. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the details of allotment made by the respondent vide draw dated 12.6.2012 as Annexure P-3 to submit that priority Nos. 15451,15453 and 15454 had been allotted a plot. The petitioner submits that she brought this matter to the attention of the DDA Officials and also filed an RTI dated 01.10.2012 bearing ID No. 5476 seeking a copy of the file of the petitioner maintained by the respondent and in response to the RTI, the respondent wrote a letter dated 16.11.2012 stating therein that the registration of the petitioner under the Scheme h