$~121 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1246/2013 K.K.RAJPUT .....Petitioner Through: Mrs. Saloni Mahajan Adv.

versus D.D.A. .....Respondent Through: MsManikaTripathySCforDDAwith MrGautamyadavadv.andMrAakash Mohar adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

“a)Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case for perusal. b)A Writ of Certiorari quashing the action on the part of the respondents in first sending the allotment cum demand letter at the wrong residential address and then canceling the allotment of Flat made in favour of the petitioner, after receiving back the allotment letter as undelivered, without trying to serve the same upon the petitioner by resending it to the available occupational address, and then refusing to make alternative allotment of a similar flat in the same area in violation of the Rules, Regulations and policy and the principles of equity, justice and good conscience;

c) A Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent to forthwith allotthroughaminidrawasuitableandsimilarMIGFlatinDwarka to the Petitioner at the appropriate cost.

d) Any other writ, order or direction which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

e) A Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent to pay the costs of this petition to the Petitioner.”

2. The facts are that in the year 1979, the respondent i.e., Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”), announced a scheme for allotment of flats under MIG, LIG and Janta categories and the petitioner, an ex-service man, got himself registered for the allotment of an MIG Flat.

3. At the time of registration, the petitioner had given his residential address as BB-26C, Janakpuri, Delhi, where he was living at that time. Besides the residential address, the petitioner had also given his occupational address i.e., Stall No. 7, B-Block, Janakpuri, Delhi.

4. The petitioner was included in a draw of MIG category held by DDA on28.03.2001,whereinhewasallottedflatNo.(FF)85,Sector-17,Pocket-D, Dwarka. However, the allotment cum demand letter was sent by DDA at a wrong address i.e., 26 CB, Pocket-B, Janakpuri, Delhi and hence, the same was not received by the petitioner.

5. Consequently, the DDA cancelled the allotment due to non-response/non-payment from the petitioner.

6. On 21.01.2013, the petitioner attended a public hearing to know the statusofhisallotmentanditisthenhecame toknowthataflatbearingNo.85 (FF), Sector-17, Pocket-D, Dwarka was allotted to him in the year 2001, but the same was cancelled due to non-response/non-payment.

7. Subsequently, the petitioner made representation to DDA pointing out that the allotment cum demand letter was sent at wrong address and requested DDA to allot an alternative flat.

8. However, in a personal meeting DDA Officials, the petitioner was informed that his representation cannot be accepted as DDA issued public notice dated 22.11.2012.

9. Hence, the present petition.

10. Ms. Tripathy, learned standing counsel for DDA, states that the case of thepetitioner isbarred bydelayand laches.She also relies on thejudgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Krishan Gopal Bakshi v. Delhi Development Authority, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8162, wherein an inordinate delaywasheldtobenon-condonableandthepetitionwasheldtobebarredby delay and laches.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has brought to my attention judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Mahinder Pal Sikri, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4803, and more particularly paragraphs No. 13, 16 and 17, which reads as under:-

“13. Considering the facts of the present cases, it is claimed, and the DDA does not contest, that all writ petitions, with one exception, were filed in well under a year from the date of knowledge of the allotment letter, and even in LPA 302/2013, the period was 1 year a