The petitioner, a former LIG flat allottee, filed a writ petition seeking a fresh allotment. The Court dismissed the petition as barred by delay and laches due to the petitioner's 26-year inactivity from 1985 to 2011 before filing.
The petition for a fresh allotment of a flat under the Tail End Policy was dismissed as barred by delay and laches.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~10
ONKAR NATH .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Ms. Udipti Chopra, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, ASC with Mr. Vidit Pratap Singh, Mr. Harshit Kiran, Mr. Ankit Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
O R D E R
“(A) A Writ of Certiorari calling for records of the case for
perusal;
(B) A Writ of mandamus thereby commanding the respondents to treat the case of the petitioner under the policy of missing priority at tail end;
(C) A Writ of mandamus commanding the respondent DDA to hold time bound draw for alternative allotment of flat under the LIG category in the West Zone at the cost of September, 2007 as per policy of missing priority at tail end. …”
This is a digitally signed order.
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 23/03/2026 at 11:32:50
under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 (“ NPRS 1979 ”) for allotment of flat under the category of Lower Income Group (“ LIG ”) vide LIG registration No. 5373 upon payment of Rs. 1200/- as registration amount. In 1984, the said registration matured and subsequently, petitioner was included in the draw held on 15.03.1984 and a LIG flat bearing No. R-27F, Dilshad Garden was allotted to him. Later, a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 10.12.1984 was issued to the petitioner raising a demand of Rs. 80,572.28/-.
This is a digitally signed order.
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 23/03/2026 at 11:32:50
locality and that his case was under process and requested the respondent to withdraw the cancellation. Since, no allotment was made to the petitioner, made representations and visited DDA’s office.
This is a digitally signed order.
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 23/03/2026 at 11:32:50
notice and non-submission of the cancellation charges, the allotment stood cancelled. After having perused the documents supplied to the petitioner, he for the first time read the letter dated 18.10.1985 and came to know about the cancellation charges. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the cancellation charges vide challan dated 25.04.2011.
This is a digitally signed order.
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 23/03/2026 at 11:32:50
This is a digitally signed order.
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 23/03/2026 at 11:32:50
This is a digitally signed order.
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 23/03/2026 at 11:32:50
“9. ….An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.
10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come
This is a digitally signed order.
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 23/03/2026 at 11:32:50
the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straitjacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.
11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and laches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited.If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, inasmuch as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and laches on the part of the applicant in
This is a digitally signed order.
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 23/03/2026 at 11:32:50
approaching a writ court.”
(Emphasis added)
JASMEET SINGH, J
MARCH 11, 2026/s p
This is a digitally signed order.
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 23/03/2026 at 11:32:50
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition is maintainable in view of the 26 years delay by the petitioner in asserting his rights regarding the flat allotment.
Whether delay and laches bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction to revive a dead cause of action.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any interim relief regarding the disputed flat allotment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda KoleyExplained¶49
Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, (2024) 15 SCC 215 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ONKAR NATH
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JASMEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
