IMPORTANT POINT
The importance of exercising vested rights within the specified time frame and the authority's discretion in cancellation of allotment.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J.

1. The present writ petition prays for the following substantial reliefs:

"(a) issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the communication dated 19-09-2005/21-09-2005 and communication-dated 23-12-2005; and

(b) issue a writ declaration declaring the act of the respondent authority in canceling the allotment of the petitioner, as being totally arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable; and

(c) issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent authority to allot and hand over the possession of plot measuring 60 Sq.Mtrs. to the petitioner; and..."

2. The brief facts for adjudication of the present writ petition are that -:

a. The petitioner had applied for allotment of a plot of 90 sq.mtrs. under the Rohini Residential Scheme of DDA/respondent authority on 23.03.1981. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and it is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent authority has failed to consider the application of the petitioner under the said category.

b. The petitioner raised the issue of non-consideration before the respondent authority. Since the allotment was not forthcoming, the petitioner in the year of 2002 filed WP(C) 3741/2002 against the respondent authority seeking allotment of an MIG plot under the reserved category at the rates prevailing in the year 1992.

c. During the pendency of the said writ petition, plot bearing no. 59, Pocket-8, Block-A, Sector-16, Rohini in Phase II admeasuring 60 sq.mtrs. was allotted to the petitioner through a Mini-Draw held on 27.12.2002.

d. The petitioner during the pendency of the matter agitated the issue that the allotment of the plot should be on the rates prevailing in the year 1992 for the petitioner.

e. This court vide order dated 08.08.2003 disposed of the writ petition. The operative portion of the order reads as under: -

"20) The plot has since been allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 05.02.2003. It is, thus, permissible for the petitioner to accept the said allotment within a maximum period of 4 weeks from today on making the necessary payment in terms of the said letter and submitting the requisite documents. On the petitioner doing the needful, the possession of the plot shall be handed over within a period of 2 weeks thereafter. However, on failure of the petitioner to do the needful within the aforesaid period of time, it will be open to the respondent to proceed and deal with the plot in any manner deemed proper."

f. The petitioner preferred an appeal, being LPA no. 620/2003, before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court against the order dated 08.08.2003 on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to a plot of 90 sq.mtrs at the cost prevailing in the year of 1992. The said appeal was dismissed on 05.09.2003, the operative portion of which reads as under: -

"...On reading para 12 of the said order, it appears that the learned Single Judge was fully satisfied that the application was not made indicating the reserved category. Not only that, when the authorities attention was drawn, after verification, they have changed the category and allotted the plot and the petition is filed in 2001 after delayed period. We find no reason to interfere with the order made by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed."

g. Against the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the petitioner preferred SLP No. 2937/2004 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.04.2004 issued notice and directed that the allotment of the plot shall not be canceled. The same reads as under:-

"Delay Condoned.

Issue Notice.

In the meantime the allotment of the plot shall not be cancelled."

h. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.05.2005 dismissed the SLP preferred by the petitioner.

i. The petitioner on dismissal of the said SLP, deposited the amount demanded by the respondent authority for allotment of the earlier plot. Vide letter dated 12.07.2005, the petitioner requested the respondent authority for handing over of the possession of