Disposed¶50

Gian Chand Gupta v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC2 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/3354/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 3354/2014, Jasmeet Singh, J. (02.04.2026): DDA allotment — registrant's file lost by DDA, flat allotted to another on his Registration No. 22861; delay and laches objection rejected; Circular dated 13.10.2011 held inapplicable; price fixed at the rate prevalent on the date of filing of the writ petition (2014), following DDA v. Mahinder Pal Sikri (2013:DHC:6154-DB) and Nanak Chand v. DDA (2014:DHC:4031-DB); directions for allotment, payment, possession and conveyance deed.

What did the court decide?

Allotment to the petitioner of a flat similar to his entitlement at the rate of the year 2014 (date of filing of the writ petition), within 4 weeks; payment by the petitioner within 4 weeks of the demand; possession of the flat and execution of the conveyance deed within 4 weeks thereafter. ¶50

Gian Chand Gupta Vs Delhi Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition filed in 2014 is barred by delay and laches. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The objection of delay and laches cannot be entertained: since the respondent's own record (paras 2 to 8 of the parawise reply) showed the petitioner's file as missing and not traceable, no fault can be found with the petitioner approaching the Court in 2014.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

A public authority cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own administrative lapses so as to deny a legitimate claim of a citizen; once the petitioner's registration and priority are not in dispute, the burden lay upon the respondent to justify the non-allotment, which it failed to discharge.

¶39

Key takeaways

The Circular dated 13.10.2011 (old cases not to be reopened; standard cost as prevalent on the date of issue of demand-cum-allotment letter) is not applicable to the facts of this case, as no fault can be ascribed to the petitioner — it is the DDA who misplaced the file.ratio¶41
The petitioner is entitled to allotment of the flat at the rate of the year 2014, i.e. the rate prevalent on the date on which he filed the writ petition (following Delhi Development Authority v. Mahinder Pal Sikri and Nanak Chand).ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 by a 1979 registrant under DDA's New Pattern Housing Registration Scheme, 1979 (application and deposit of Rs. 1,500 on 25.10.1979; registration certificate dated 26.05.1980; Registration No. 22861), who learnt in 2014 that a flat had been allotted on his registration number to another allottee on 26.05.1980, the DDA's file being missing and not traceable. Held: (i) the objection of delay and laches cannot be entertained — a public authority cannot take advantage of its own administrative lapses to deny a legitimate claim, and with the file missing the burden of justifying the non-allotment lay on the respondent, which it failed to discharge; (ii) the Circular dated 13.10.2011 (old cases not to be reopened; standard cost as prevalent on the date of issue of demand-cum-allotment letter) is not applicable, no fault being ascribable to the petitioner; (iii) relying on Delhi Development Authority v. Mahinder Pal Sikri (Deceased) Through LR, 2013:DHC:6154-DB and Nanak Chand v. Delhi Development Authority, 2014:DHC:4031-DB, the applicable rate is that of the year 2014, i.e. the date of filing of the writ petition, failing which the nearest rate of similarly situated flats is to be scaled down/scaled up to meet the 2014 rates. Petition disposed of: allotment of a similar flat within 4 weeks; payment within 4 weeks of demand; possession and conveyance deed within 4 weeks thereafter. (JASMEET SINGH, J; order dated 02.04.2026, corrected and released on 15.04.2026.)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3354/2014

¶4

GIAN CHAND GUPTA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Manish Bansal, Mr. Robin Bansal, Ms.Rhythm Goel, Ms.Nancy Garg, Ms. Shruti Mittal, Advs.

¶6

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Mrinalini Sen, SC with Ms. Aditi Singh, Mr. Karan Mishra, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

02.04.2026

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer(s):-

¶12

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to allotment the flat to the Petitioner at the price prevailing on the date of allotment made against the registration and priority number issued to the petitioner ;…”

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for allotment of a flat on 25.10.1979 and made a deposit of Rs. 1,500/- vide deposit receipt No. 107553 dated 25.10.1979.The certificate of registration was issued on 26.05.1980.

¶14

From the year 1981 to 2013, the petitioner kept on writing letters and RTIs and the respondent replied to the said letters by stating that the file of the petitioner was missing.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:36

¶17

The petitioner in the year 2014, from his own sources came to know that the respondent had allotted a flat on the registration number of the petitioner, i.e. 22861 to another allottee on 26.05.1980.

¶18

Hence, the present petition was filed.

¶19

Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner should be allotted a flat at the same rate, i.e. when persons junior to his entitlement, namely Mr. Govindlal, was allotted a flat, i.e at 2005 rates.

¶20

He has also handed over a letter dated 04.03.2009 of the respondent/DDA, which reads as under:

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:36

¶23

He states that the veracity of the same may b e verified by learned counsel fo r the respondent and the same is ha n ded over to Ms. Sen, learned s t anding counsel.

¶24

Ms. Sen, l earned Standing Counsel, is unable to verify the authenticity of the sai d letter.

¶25

Nonethel e ss, Ms. Sen submits that the scheme for allotment of DDA

¶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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:36

¶28

flats under the New Pattern Housing Registration Scheme, 1979 was duly closed after wide publicity through public notices published in leading newspapers. Therefore, at the outset the petition is barred by delay and laches.

¶29

She further draws my attention to an RTI application filed by the petitioner in the year 2008, to which the DDA responded that the file pertaining to Registration No. 22861 was not available with the respondent. She also states that, in the year 2016, a flat was offered to the petitioner, which the petitioner declined to accept.

¶30

Further it is stated that the petitioner had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to which a proper reply was furnished vide letter dated 26.03.2014.

¶31

She further relies on a Circular dated 13.10.2011 which states that old cases will not be reopened and the cost of the flat will be standard cost as prevalent on the date of issue of demand-cum-allotment letter .

¶32

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶33

The primary objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the objection filed by the petitioner in the year 2014 is barred by delay and laches. I am unable to agree.

¶34

In the present case, the letter dated 04.03.2009 issued by the respondent shows that the case of the petitioner was stated to be under examination and the outcome was to be intimated.

¶35

In para 2 to 8 of the parawise reply, the respondent themselves say that the record pertaining to the file of the petitioner was missing and not traceable. That being the scenario no fault can be found with the petitioner approaching the Court in the year 2014 when the file of the

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:36

¶38

petitioner was itself missing with the respondent.

¶39

Additionally, a public authority cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own administrative lapses so as to deny a legitimate claim of a citizen. Once the petitioner’s registration and priority are not in dispute, the burden lay upon the respondent to justify the non-allotment, which it has failed to discharge.

¶40

Hence the objection of delay and laches cannot be entertained.

¶41

Insofar as the reliance placed on the Circular dated 13.10.2011 is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, no fault can be ascribed to the petitioner as it is the DDA who misplaced the file.

¶42

Therefore, the only issue before me is that rate at which the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of the flat.

¶43

In the judgments of Delhi Development Authority v. Mahinder Pal Sikri (Deceased) Through LR , 2013:DHC:6154-DB, Nanak Chand v. Delhi Development Authority, 2014:DHC:4031-DB it has been held that the petitioner should be entitled to the rate on the date of which the writ petition has been filed. The relevant paragraphs of Nanak Chand (Supra) read as under:

¶44

“9. The appellant is entitled to be treated as per the consistent view taken by this Court. The price for allotment of the flat would be the one prevalent on the date the writ petition was filed. The time taken in adjudication of the writ petition cannot be attributed to the petitioner thus causing him to pay higher cost of the flat, as far as a petitioner is concerned the clock stops ticking the day he filed the writ

¶45

This is a digitally signed order.

¶46

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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:36

¶47

petition.

¶48

10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court directs that the appellant Nanak Chand be allotted a flat of equivalent size at the price prevalent on the date he filed the writ petition.”

¶49

(emphasis added)

¶50

My view for holding the said rate as available to the petitioner is also fortified by the fact that the respondent in 2016 offered a flat to the petitioner, which the petitioner refused to accept.For the said reasons and in order to dosubstantial justice, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall be allotted a flat similar flat to his entitlement within 4 weeks from today.

¶51

Additionally, except for a sum of Rs. 1500/-, the petitioner has not paid any amount to his allotment.The rate applicable will be the rate of the year 2014, i.e. on which date the petitioner had filed the writ petition.

¶52

In case the same rate is not applicable, the nearest rate of similarly situated flats will be scaled down/ scaled up to meet the 2014 rates.

¶53

The payment shall be made by the petitioner within 4 weeks of the demand and the possession of the flat as well as the conveyance deed shall be executed within 4 weeks thereafter.

¶54

The letter dated 04.03.2009 and circular dated 13.10.2011 handed over today in court is taken on record.

¶55

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶56

APRIL 2, 2026/sp (corrected and released on 15.04.2026)

¶57

This is a digitally signed order.

¶58

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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:36

Gian Chand Gupta v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gian Chand Gupta v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Gian Prakash Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shri B R Patel Ptc College Smt Sa Patel Mahila B Ed College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

K M Karthik Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sonia Kalra Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Naveen Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Satyadev Vs Delhi Fiancial Corporation & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Kasim Khan & Ors.

Muzassim Vs Unique Identification Authority of India

Shri B R Patel Ptc College Smt Sa Patel Mahila B Ed College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Sonia Kalra Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

M/S Hentex Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar Tomar Vs Aditya College of Law & Ors.

Rohit Kumar Gupta Vs Special Task Force DDA and Others

Hindustan Scouts and Guides Association through Its National Chairman Sh. Bharat Arora Vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Anr.