W.P.(C) No.3552/2008

Page 1 of 4

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 30^th September, 2010.

+

W.P.(C) No.3552/2008

%

CITIZEN ROADLINES PVT LTD

.....

PETITIONER

Through:

Mr. H.G.R. Khattar, Advocate

Versus

M.C.D & ANR

.....

RESPONDENTS

Through:

Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate

Ms. Meghna Sankhla, Advocate for

Mr. Vinod Kumar Nagpal, permanent

Managing

Director

of

petitioner

company.

CORAM :-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1.

Whether reporters of Local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

No.

2.

To be referred to the reporter or not?

No.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

No.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition, filed in May 2008, impugns the order dated 9^th April,

1992 of the respondent MCD cancelling the allotment of plot in favour of

the petitioner at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. Mandamus is also claimed

against the respondent MCD to handover the vacant, peaceful, physical

possession of plot No.BG-141 earlier allotted to the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it was allotted the aforesaid plot and

besides the payments made by it earlier, was in November 1987, called upon

to pay additional amount of `68,200/- and which was also paid by it. It

however contends that it did not thereafter receive any communication from

2010:DHC:4916

W.P.(C) No.3552/2008

Page 2 of 4

the respondent MCD, neither demanding any further amounts nor offering

possession of the premises. The petitioner claims that for 20 years thereafter

i.e. till the year 2007 it was made to run from pillar to post but to no avail. It

may however be mentioned that there is not a single letter or document

during the said period of 20 years to show that the petitioner was being made

to run from pillar to post as is being alleged or to show that the petitioner

was communicating with the respondent; there are no representations even

from the petitioner.

3. The petitioner finally vide letter dated 18^th June, 2007 demanded

possession of the plot from the respondent MCD and was vide reply dated

27^th June, 2007 of the respondent MCD informed that the allotment in favour

of the petitioner stood cancelled way back on 9^th April, 1992. The

respondent MCD also offered to refund the registration money to the

petitioner upon the petitioner submitting the original receipts.

4. The petitioner after waiting for another seven months got issued legal

notice on 30^th January, 2008 and as aforesaid in May 2008, filed the present

petition.

5. Notice of the petition was issued and the respondent MCD has filed a

counter affidavit reiterating that as on 22^nd January, 1987 an amount of

`44,880/- was due with respect to the plot; the same was not paid inspite of

demands dated 22^nd January, 1987, 8^th February, 1987 & 4^th May, 1990 and

accordingly vide letter dated 9^th April, 1992, the allotment was cancelled.

6. The petition is liable to be dismissed merely on the ground of laches /

acquiescence. The petitioner has not shown as to what steps if any and by

whom, were taken for the long period of 20 years between 1987 to 2007.

The averments made of the petitioner during the said 20 years being made to

2010:DHC:4916

W.P.(C) No.3552/2008

Page 3 of 4

run from pillar to post are vague and unbelievable. It is also unbelievable

that the petitioner did not know that allotments to those similarly situated as

him were being made. The petitioner if had been interested in allotment

would have pursued the matter.

7. The reason for the aforesaid delay has come out before the Court in

open today. Ms. Meghna Sankhla, Advocate has appeared for one Mr.

Vinod Kumar Nagpal who is stated to be the permanent Managing Director

of the petitioner. She states that Mr. Vinod Kumar Nagpal has learnt of the

petition n