Dismissed¶18

Smt. Kamlesh v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC4 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/3176/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J) dismisses Art. 226 writ by Smt. Kamlesh against DDA seeking allotment letter for Rohini Plot No. 1219, Sector-34 (EWS plot applied by late Sadhu Singh, 1983). Key points: demand-cum-allotment letter sent 26.11.2014 to address of record and returned undelivered; petitioner abroad since 2000 gave no intimation of change of address or death; DDA obliged to send letters only to known addresses on record, no tracing duty; petition barred by delay and laches relying on Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768. Search terms: DDA allotment, EWS plot, delay and laches, stale claim, undelivered speed post, writ dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is under an obligation to send the demand-cum-allotment letter at all known addresses available on record with it qua the allotment.

Smt. Kamlesh Vs Delhi Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to DDA to issue the allotment letter for Plot No. 1219, Sector-34, Plot C6, Rohini, Delhi. +2 more

¶1

Ratio / Principle

The respondent is under an obligation to send the demand-cum-allotment letter at all known addresses available on record with it qua the allotment.

¶13

Key takeaways

After allotment, the respondent is not required to conduct an inquiry into the petitioner's status, locate her new address, and then send the allotment letter.ratio¶14
Since the date of application in the 1980s, the petitioner took no steps to contact the respondent, seek the status of allotment, or inform it of Mr. Sadhu Singh's demise or the change of address.ratio¶15
No fault can be found with the process of the respondent.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Article 226, Constitution of India) by Smt. Kamlesh seeking directions to DDA to issue the allotment letter for Plot No. 1219, Sector-34, Plot C6, Rohini, Delhi — an EWS-category plot applied for in 1983 by her late husband Mr. Sadhu Singh (application No. 79917, priority No. 5598). Draw of lots held in 2012 and the allotment was communicated by speed post to the recorded address (RZ-21, Vishnu Garden Extension No. 2, New Delhi-110018); the communication was returned undelivered, and the allotment-cum-demand letter was sent on 26.11.2014 to the same official address. The petitioner, who shifted to the UK in 2000, never informed DDA of the change of address or of her husband's demise until her letter of 29.08.2019. Held: the respondent's obligation extends only to sending the demand-cum-allotment letter at all known addresses on its record; it need not inquire into the allottee's whereabouts or trace a new address; no fault lay with DDA's process; and the petition was additionally barred by delay and laches (letter of 2014, petition of 2020 for a 1983 application), in line with Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 (paras 56–57 quoted on delay and laches as a ground for refusing discretionary writ jurisdiction). Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 3176/2021 & CM APPL. 9633/2021 SMT. KAMLESH

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. SC Singhal & Mr. Saideep Kaushik, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

¶8

.....Respondent

¶9

Through: Ms. Asiya Khan, Adv.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 04.02.2026

¶11

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondent to issue allotment letter with respect to Plot No. 1219, Sector-34, Plot C6, Rohini, Delhi.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner Late Mr. Sadhu Singh applied for allotment of an EWS category plot vide application No. 79917 having priority No. 5598 in the year 1983.

¶13

Mr. Sadhu Singh, passed away leaving behind the petitioner (wife) and his children.

¶14

The petitioner thereafter in the year 2000 shifted to UK and has been visiting India from time to time.

¶15

In August, 2019, the petitioner on her visit to India was contacted by a local property dealer who informed her about the allotment and wanting to buy the same.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2026 at 14:14:45

¶18

It is thereafter the petitioner sent a letter to the Deputy Director, DDA on 29.08.2019, giving the particulars and requested for allotment of the plot. Since the plot has not been allotted, the present petition has been filed.

¶19

Ms. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent/DDA opposes the petition. She states that the respondent was never intimated about change of address of the allottee nor was the news ever communicated by the LRs. She also states that the petition is barred by delay and laches as the relief is being sought after 25 years.

¶20

I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶21

In the present case, admittedly, the husband of the petitioner applied and as per the application form, the address of the petitioner is RZ-21, Vishnu Garden Extension No. 2, New Delhi-110018.

¶22

From the date of application, admittedly, there has been no letter by the petitioners informing the respondent/DDA regarding any change of address, the demise of Mr. Sadhu Singh or any other correspondence till the year 2019.

¶23

The draw of lots was held in the year 2012 and as per the documents available on record, the respondent duly communicated the same to Late Mr. Sadhu Singh at the address available on record of DDA i.e. RZ-21, Vishnu Garden Extension No. 2, New Delhi-110018. The affidavit also has the copy of the speed post communicating the allotment to Late Mr. Sadhu Singh at the said address.

¶24

Obviously, since the petitioner was not residing at the address, the same was returned undelivered.

¶25

The respondent, in my view, is under an obligation to send demand-

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2026 at 14:14:45

¶28

cum-allotment letter at all known addresses available on record with the respondent qua the allotment.

¶29

The respondent after allotment is not required to conduct an inquiry as to the status of the petitioner, find the new address of the petitioner and thereafter, send the allotment letter to the petitioner.

¶30

The petitioners after the date of application i.e. in 1980s has been taking no efforts whatsoever to contact the respondent, or to seek the status of allotment, or to inform the respondent about the demise of Mr. Sadhu Singh, or to inform the respondent about the change of address.

¶31

For the said reasons and in view of the aforesaid, no fault can be found with the process of the respondent.

¶32

Additionally, the petition is also barred by delay and laches as even the allotment cum demand letter was sent on 26.11.2014 at the official address maintained in the records of DDA. The present writ petition was filed in 2020, for an allotment which was applied in 1983 and granted in 2014. The same is in line with the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:

¶33

“56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2026 at 14:14:45

¶36

discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches.

¶37

57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime…”

¶38

(Emphasis added)

¶39

Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

¶40

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶41

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶42

FEBRUARY 4, 2026 / (MS)

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2026 at 14:14:45

Smt. Kamlesh v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamlesh v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piraivanmathi P Vs Directorate of Education and Ors.

M/S Iifl Home Finance Ltd. Vs Sagar Aggarwal & Ors.

Dr Gitanjali Dey Vs Punjab National Bank through Branch Manager Vikas Puri

Amit Jain Vs General Manager Canara Bank & Ors.

Dr Bipin Batra Vs National Board of Examinations and Another

Resident Welfare Association Pocket- K and Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Santhi Caterers Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kartik Rana Vs Airport Authority of India

Dr Gitanjali Dey Vs Punjab National Bank through Branch Manager Vikas Puri

Raj Kumari Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Dr. Subhash Giri Vs Delhi Development Authority

Pankaj Kumar Vs Special Task Force and Others

Rathod Nidhi Kiran Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences & Ors.

Ram Lal Arya Vs DDA