Failure to adhere to allotment payment schedules justifies cancellation despite subsequent deposit of dues.

The Petitioner, a registrant under the Rohini Residential Scheme 1981, was allotted a 60 sq. mtr. plot in 2003 on a perpetual leasehold basis

The allotment-cum-demand letter required payment in three installments

The Petitioner paid the first installment but failed to pay the second and third installments by the deadlines of 03.01.2004 and 02.02.2004, respectively

The Petitioner claimed the delay was due to his wife’s medical treatment; however, he only deposited the balance amount on 11.04.2005

The Respondent (DDA) issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 20.09.2004, which was returned unserved as the Petitioner had left India

DDA subsequently cancelled the allotment on 13.05.2005 for non-payment

The Petitioner challenged this cancellation as arbitrary and discriminatory

1. Whether the Respondent acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily in declining to condone the delay in payment of installments and cancelling the allotment.

2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated prior to the cancellation of the allotment.

The court applied DDA Resolution No. 52/2004, which permits the competent authority to condone delays in payment up to a maximum of 360 days subject to restoration charges and interest

The court also applied the doctrine of "concluded contract," noting that the obligation to hand over possession arises only upon strict compliance with payment terms stipulated in the scheme

Regarding natural justice, the court followed the principle that service of notice to the last known address provided by the party constitutes sufficient opportunity for a hearing

The court found that the Petitioner’s explanation for the delay (medical expenses) did not justify a departure from the mandatory payment schedule

The court analyzed the DDA’s policy and noted that while a delay of up to 360 days could be condoned, the Petitioner’s delay exceeded 400 days for both remaining installments, placing him outside the scope of the policy

Consequently, the Petitioner could not claim "parity" with other allottees whose delays fell within condonable limits

Regarding the alleged lack of natural justice, the court observed that the DDA had dispatched the SCN to the address provided by the Petitioner himself; the fact that it returned unserved because the Petitioner was abroad did not invalidate the process

The court further held that the lack of basic amenities in the area was irrelevant to the legal validity of a cancellation based on financial default

It held that the cancellation was valid as it followed the terms of the allotment letter and the Petitioner failed to meet the condonation criteria under the applicable policy

The court vacated all interim stay orders and directed the DDA to refund the Petitioner’s deposits in accordance with existing rules