A review petition cannot be treated as an appeal; it is limited to specific grounds such as new evidence or apparent errors, and prior cancellation of registration extinguishes any claim to allotment.

ORDER :

REVIEW PET. 408/2024 (For review of order dated 09.09.2024)

1. This order shall decide the application moved by the applicant/petitioner Shyam Sunder Sethi (hereinafter referred as ‘the applicant’) under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”], thereby seeking review and recall of the Judgment dated 09.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 10299/2023 titled as Shyam Sunder Sethi v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 

2. Briefly stated, the applicant invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the respondent/DDA (Delhi Development Authority) (hereinafter referred as ‘the DDA’) on his representation dated 27.05.2022 whereby his application for allotment of Plot bearing No. 1095, Block C-4, Sector-34, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘the subject plot’) was rejected.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the applicant applied for allotment of flat under the MIG (Middle Income Group) category in the Housing New Registration Scheme, 1976 and deposited a sum of Rs. 7,500/-. Subsequently, his registration was transferred on 20.04.1981 for allotment of flat in MIG category under Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 [“RRS, 1981”].

4. It is the case of the applicant that irked over the fact that he had been waiting for a decade for allotment of any MIG flat, he submitted a request to cancel the registration in his favour vide letter dated 24.06.1991, simultaneously also requesting for refund of the amount of Rs. 7500/- deposited. It is the case of the applicant that he did not receive any response from the DDA, and therefore, on 04.01.2004 he submitted a request for withdrawal of his earlier application for cancellation of registration. There came about an interesting twist to the story when the applicant discovered that his name figured in the draw of lots conducted by the DDA on 12.06.2012, whereby the subject plot of land was allotted to him, and his grievance was that he was not issued any demand-cum-allotment letter.

5. As no response was received by the DDA despite serving legal notice dated 26.03.2022, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C) 8489/2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.05.2022, thereby directing the DDA to consider the writ petition as a representation and decide the same. Eventually, the representation was dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.05.2023 and the writ petition preferred by the applicant came to be dismissed by this Court vide impugned judgment dated 09.09.2024, which is sought to be recalled/revoked.

6. It would be relevant to extract the operative portion of the judgment, which goes as under:

“13. At the outset, this Court unhesitatingly finds that the petitioner cannot claim any vested legal right to seek the allotment of the plot in question based on the draw of lots carried out on 12.06.2012. Once the petitioner had voluntarily sought the cancellation of his registration through application dated 24.06.1991 and had returned the original FDR No. 24931 dated 20.04.1981, the registration did not remain alive, as it had been accepted by the competent authority in terms of letter dated 17.09.1991. The petitioner does not deny receiving the letter dated 17.09.1991. It manifestly appears that he sat over his legal rights for a very long time and did not address any further communication for refund of the amount deposited. It appears that after more than 13 years, he claimed to have sent a letter dated 14.01.2004, requesting to withdraw his earlier cancellation request made via letter dated 24.06.1991. Interestingly, the receipt of the request letter dated 04.01.2004 for withdra