Dismissed¶16

Smt. Asha v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC5 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/9962/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

delay and laches; writ of mandamus; DDA flat allotment; automatic cancellation clause; Demand Letter dated 24.05.2007; non-payment by 28.08.2007; Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants (HSRPM); Punjab migrant; Peeragarhi Relief Camp; Bindapur flat; conveyance deed; hire-cum-purchase to cash down conversion; 13 years' inaction; Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley (2024) 15 SCC 215 followed; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; petition dismissed; no appearance for petitioner; W.P.(C) 9962/2021; Jasmeet Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner chose to sleep over her rights for about 13 years after the Demand Letter dated 24.05.2007 before approaching the Court in September 2021; the writ petition is clearly hit by the doctrine of delay and laches, following Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, (2024) 15 SCC 215.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus directing DDA to hand over possession of Flat No. 36, Pocket-3, Type-A, Block-F, Bindapur, Delhi, allotted jointly to her and her husband, and to execute the conveyance deed in her name. +2 more

¶1

Court's answer

The petition seeking mandamus for possession of the flat and execution of the conveyance deed is devoid of merit and is dismissed; pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

¶12

Key takeaways

The petitioner neither made the payment within the time stipulated in the Demand Letter (last date 28.08.2007, failing which the allotment would be automatically cancelled) nor took any steps for over 13 years; on this ground as well the petition fails.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J.), W.P.(C) 9962/2021 — Smt. Asha v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. Writ petition under Articles 226/227 seeking a mandamus to DDA to hand over possession of Flat No. 36, Pocket-3, Type-A, Block-F, Bindapur, Delhi — allotted in the draw of lots held on 13.09.2006 to the petitioner's husband, late Sukhbir Singh, a Punjab migrant residing in the Peeragarhi Relief Camp, under the Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants (HSRPM) — and to execute the conveyance deed in her name, and to restrain creation of any third-party interest or re-allotment. The Demand Letter dated 24.05.2007, issued in the joint names of the petitioner and her husband, required payment of the entire cost price less the registration amount by 28.08.2007, failing which the allotment and registration would stand automatically cancelled. The petitioner made no payment and took no steps for about 13 years, filing the writ petition only in September 2021; nobody appeared on her behalf when the matter was heard. Following Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, (2024) 15 SCC 215, the Court held the petition clearly hit by the doctrine of delay and laches and devoid of merit, and dismissed it; pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

¶1

$~25

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9962/2021 & CM APPL. 30727/2021

¶4

SMT. ASHA

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: None versus

¶7

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr. Shivam Takiar, Mr. Prateek Dhir, Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advs. for R1 Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Advocate, PC with Mr. Kartik Sharma, Advs. for R2-3

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 05.02.2026

¶14

This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶15

“A. Issue writ of mandamus directing respondent/ DDA to handover the possession of the flat bearing no. 36, Pocket-3, Type-A, Block-F, Bindapur, Delhi allotted to petitioner and her husband jointly and execute the conveyance deed in the name of the petitioner; and

¶16

B. Issue directions to respondent restraining the respondent to create any third party interest or re-allot the allotted flat of the petitioner bearing no. 36, Pocket-3, Type-A, Block-F, Bindapur, Delhi allotted to petitioner.”

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 10/02/2026 at 13:03:23

¶19

The facts are that the petitioner is wife of late Mr. Sukhbir Singh, who was one of the migrant from Punjab who shifted to Delhi during militancy in Punjab and was residing in a temporary Relief Camp namely Peeragarhi Relief Camp, Delhi.

¶20

The Delhi Development Authority (“ DDA ”) i.e., respondent No. 1 introduced a scheme namely Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants (HSRPM).

¶21

The husband of the petitioner submitted his application form and also deposited the registration amount through demand draft for the said housing scheme.

¶22

On 12.08.2005, the husband of the petitioner passed away.

¶23

The petitioner’s husband was allotted a flat bearing No. 36, Pocket-3, Type-A, Block-F, Bindapur, Delhi in draw of lots held on 13.09.2006.

¶24

Thereafter, on 05.02.2007, the DDA issued a letter in petitioner’s husband’s name seeking consent regarding allotment of flat from hirecum-purchase bases to cash down mode. The petitioner consented to the same and also submitted documents for addition of her name in the said allotment.

¶25

The DDA issued Demand letter dated 24.05.2007 in the joint name of the petitioner and her husband for payment of the entire cost price of the allotted flat less the registration amount.

¶26

Thereafter, the petitioner did not take any steps for a period of about 13 years and thereafter, filed the present writ petition in September, 2021.

¶27

Ms. Takiar, learned standing counsel for DDA, draws my attention to the Demand Letter dated 24.05.2007 and the operative portion of the

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 10/02/2026 at 13:03:23

¶30

same reads as under:-

¶31

“Allotment and registration will be cancelled automatically if,

¶32

1. Initial deposit not paid by the instalment is not paid till last date of payment.

¶33

2. If payable amount not paid by last date of payment which is 28.08.2007

¶34

xxxxxxxx ”

¶35

She states that in the absence of the petitioner making the payment and in the absence of the petitioner taking any steps from the year 2007 till filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner has lost her right to the allotment.

¶36

I am in agreement with the stand taken by Ms. Takiar, learned standing counsel for DDA. The petitioner has chosen to sleep over her rights and the present writ petition is clearly hit by the doctrine of delay and laches. The law on delays and laches has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, (2024) 15 SCC 215 wherein it was held as under:-

¶37

“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

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

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 10/02/2026 at 13:03:23

¶40

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 approaching a writ court.”

¶41

(Emphasis added)

¶42

Additionally, the Demand Letter clearly states that if the payment is not made by 28.08.2007, the allotment would be automatically cancelled.

¶43

In this view of the matter, the present petition is devoid of merit. Not only has the petitioner not make the payment in specified time limit but also slept over her right for over 13 years before coming to this Court.

¶44

Additionally, there is nobody appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well.

¶45

Hence, the petition is dismissed in aforesaid terms.

¶46

Consequently, pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶47

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶48

FEBRUARY 5, 2026 / (MS)

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

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 10/02/2026 at 13:03:23

Smt. Asha v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Asha 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

Vijender Singh. Vs Globe Detective Agency Pvt. Ltd.

Kumari Pratiksha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Narendra Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Save India Foundation (Regd.) Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Ran Singh and Anr. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.

Sanjay Pahwa Vs Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Ami Sisodiya Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Mr Markand Adhikari Vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Kumari Pratiksha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Master Adit Raj (through His Mother Madhvi Devi) Vs Directorate of Education (Doe) and Ors.

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

Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Vaibhav Singhal and Anr. Vs Idbi Bank Limited and Anr.

Advika Bansal and Ors. Vs Maxfort School through Its Principal