DDA Should Have Litigation Policy To Screen Cases To Avoid Unnecessary Filings : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) after noting that there is a consistent delay on the part of the DDA in assailing the orders in the present matter. It also noted that it is expected of the DDA to have a litigation policy where screening of cases can take place, so that such belated filing of cases can be avoided to save judicial time.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case pertaining to the allotment of the MIG plot under the Rohini Residential Scheme, where the DDA filed a special leave petition after a delay of 235 days. It noted that even the Delhi High Court dismissed its latent patent appeal after noting a delay of 685 days in preferring the same and a delay of 577 days in filing the review petition before the single judge. 

The bench noted that the explanation offered by the DDA for the condonation of the delay is neither "satisfactory" nor "sufficient in law" to condone the delay. 

"There is a consistent delay on the part of the petitioner/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in assailing the orders in this case. We do not think that the petitioner herein could be given any indulgence because it is a development authority. We find that delay in the instant case is fatal insofar as its contentions are concerned. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner herein to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of six weeks from today."

Therefore, the Court dismissed its application for the condonation of the delay. It also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 after finding that the delay in this case is fatal.

The Court also remarked that some litigation policy must be adopted by the DDA so that such belated filings can be avoided: "It is expected that the DDA ought to have a litigation policy and screening of cases which have to be agitated before the respective fora before straightway filing such cases belatedly adding to the docket explosion and consumption of judicial time."

In the last few months, the Supreme Court benches have time and again cautioned the Union Government to approach the Court within the timeframe. 

In Shivamma, a bench Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan warned High Courts not to condone inordinate delays by State agencies on grounds of administrative lethargy and laxity. In this case, it had to set aside the order of the Karnataka High Court, which condoned a delay of 11 years by the Karnataka Housing Board in filing a second appeal against a decree.

Case Details: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SHILYA & ORS|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 74139/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 75

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Mr. Himaghn Jain, Adv.