//
you're reading...
legal issues

relocation policy of the Delhi Administration and that one of the two plots earlier allotted to the appellants be retained and the remaining plot be surrendered. – challanged – High court dismissed the writ petition – Apex court too confirmed the same – the contention that in another case High court granted relief infavour of writ petitioner – which is the subject matter and pending before another Bench – is not the basis for consideration and further that case is different one and pending for consideration before the another Bench = CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5613 OF 2010 JAI BHAGWAN GOEL DAL MILL & ORS. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. … RESPONDENT (S) = 2014 Sept.Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41865

relocation policy of the Delhi Administration and that one  of  the  two plots earlier allotted to the appellants be retained and the remaining  plot be surrendered.  – challanged – High court dismissed the writ petition – Apex court too confirmed the same – the contention that in another case High court granted relief infavour of writ petitioner – which is the subject matter and pending before another Bench  – is not the basis for consideration and further that case is different one and pending for consideration before the another Bench = 

By the aforesaid orders the High Court  has

dismissed  the  challenge  of  the  appellants  to  the  decision   of   the

Respondents that the appellants are entitled to only one  plot  pursuant  to

the relocation policy of the Delhi Administration and that one  of  the  two

plots earlier allotted to the appellants be retained and the remaining  plot

be surrendered.      =

it

appears that in a Cabinet Meeting dated 07.06.1999 as also in a  meeting  of

the High Powered Project Implementation Committee in respect  of  relocation

scheme  certain  decisions  were  taken   which   were   circulated   by   a

Letter/Memorandum dated 20.07.1999.  The decisions contained  in  paragraphs

(iv) and (vii) of the  said  letter/memorandum  dated  20.07.1999  would  be

relevant for the purpose  of  the  present  case  and  therefore  are  being

extracted below.

“(iv) The units who have applied for industrial plots  measuring  more  than

400 sq. mtrs. will be offered a maximum of only 250 sq. mtrs.

(v)   ….    ….   ….    ….

(vi)  ….    ….   ….    ….

(vii) Units which are functioning from more than one premises and  submitted

separate applications in respect of each premises, the requirement  of  plot

area of all the locations should be clubbed together and if it  exceeds  400

sq. mtrs. then the provisions proposed for larger units should be applied.”

6.    The aforesaid two decisions would seem to indicate that a revision  of

the policy decision was undertaken  by  which  the  maximum  plot  size  was

restricted to 250 sq. mtrs.

Similarly,  in  respect  of  units  which  were

functioning from more than one premises/location  the  requirement  of  plot

area  of  such  units  were  to  be  clubbed  together  even   if   separate

applications  had  been  submitted  by  such  units.

Both  the   aforesaid

decisions, according to the respondents, was prompted by the acute  scarcity

of land for the purpose of  allotment  under  the  relocation  policy.

It

appears that the aforesaid decisions in modification of the  earlier  policy

taken in June 1999 and  circulated  by  Letter/Memorandum  dated  20.07.1999

were not taken note of at the time when the appellant was  informed  of  its

provisional eligibility to obtain allotment of  two  plots  (25.04.2000)  or

before the formal allotment orders on 07.05.2004 were issued  in  favour  of

the appellant.

The aforesaid change of policy that was  overlooked  however

came to the notice of the respondents  before  physical  possession  of  the

plots  was  handed  over  to  the  appellant.

Accordingly,  the   impugned

communication  dated  08.11.2006  was  issued  requiring  the  appellant  to

indicate which out of the two plots allotted to it would be retained.=

 If the initial allotment (2 plots) made in  favour  of  the  appellant

was contrary to the relocation policy itself  the  appellant  will  have  no

right to retain both the plots.  

In fact the allotment being pursuant  to  a

policy and at prices much lower than the market price no vested right to  be

allotted a plot can be recognized.  

At best a right  of  fair  consideration

alone can be attributed which does not appear to have been breached  in  the

present  case  so  as  to  have  required  correction  in  exercise  of  the

jurisdiction  vested  in  the  High  Court  under   Article   226   of   the

Constitution.=

we do not find any  merit  in  this  appeal

which is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

2014 Sept.Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41865

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5613 OF 2010
JAI BHAGWAN GOEL DAL MILL & ORS. … APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. … RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The challenge herein is against the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by
the High Court of Delhi dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the
present appellants against an order dated 20.07.2009 passed by a learned
Single Judge of the High Court. By the aforesaid orders the High Court has
dismissed the challenge of the appellants to the decision of the
Respondents that the appellants are entitled to only one plot pursuant to
the relocation policy of the Delhi Administration and that one of the two
plots earlier allotted to the appellants be retained and the remaining plot
be surrendered.

2. The appellant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”),
which is a partnership firm, was running two industrial units for
processing Moong and Masoor Dal located in two different plots covered by
Khasra No. 570 and 544/1 at Village Bakoli, Delhi. The location of the
aforesaid two units came within the purview of the Order dated 30.10.1996
passed by this Court by which relocation of manufacturing/industrial units
in non-conforming or residential areas were required to be made. Acting
pursuant to the said order of this Court, a Public Notice dated 27.11.1996
was issued inviting applications for allotment of industrial plots for
relocation of industries from residential/non-conforming areas. The
appellant filed two applications i.e. 17547 and 17549 dated 26.12.1996 for
allotment of two separate plots for relocation of its units. According to
the appellants, by communications dated 25.04.2000 the Delhi State
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIDC) informed the first
appellant that on scrutiny of the applications submitted it was found that
the appellant is provisionally eligible for allotment of industrial plots
at a tentative cost of Rs. 3000/- per sq. mtr. By the said communications
the appellant was required to make an initial deposit, which was so done.
Thereafter, according to the appellants, by two separate communications
dated 07.05.2004 the DSIDC informed the first appellant that on the basis
of the draw of lots conducted, the first appellant had been allotted two
different plots of 250 sq. mtrs. each at a price of Rs. 4200 per sq. mtr.
On receipt of the aforesaid communication the first appellant claim to have
deposited the entire cost of the two plots allotted to it against the two
separate applications i.e. No. 17547 and 17549. However, instead of
handing over possession of the respective plots to the appellant, by the
impugned communication dated 08.11.2006 the DSIDC informed the appellant
that the two units in respect of which the applications for allotment were
submitted have the same title, partners and municipal certificates and
therefore under the relocation policy only one plot could be allotted to
the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant was asked to indicate its choice
as to which of the two plots they would like to retain. It also appears
that pursuant to the aforesaid communication the appellant indicated its
option pursuant to which the amount deposited against application No. 17549
was returned by the DSIDC to the appellant.

3. Against the decision contained in the aforesaid communication dated
08.11.2006, the writ petition in question was filed. It is out of the
order dated 20.07.2009 dismissing the writ petition that LPA No. 447 of
2009 was filed by the appellants which has been dismissed by the impugned
order leading to the institution of the present appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. S.L. Aneja learned counsel for the appellants and
Ms. Rekha Pandey learned counsel for the respondents.
5. From the materials brought on record by the contesting parties,
particularly, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it
appears that in a Cabinet Meeting dated 07.06.1999 as also in a meeting of
the High Powered Project Implementation Committee in respect of relocation
scheme certain decisions were taken which were circulated by a
Letter/Memorandum dated 20.07.1999. The decisions contained in paragraphs
(iv) and (vii) of the said letter/memorandum dated 20.07.1999 would be
relevant for the purpose of the present case and therefore are being
extracted below.
“(iv) The units who have applied for industrial plots measuring more than
400 sq. mtrs. will be offered a maximum of only 250 sq. mtrs.
(v) …. …. …. ….
(vi) …. …. …. ….
(vii) Units which are functioning from more than one premises and submitted
separate applications in respect of each premises, the requirement of plot
area of all the locations should be clubbed together and if it exceeds 400
sq. mtrs. then the provisions proposed for larger units should be applied.”
6. The aforesaid two decisions would seem to indicate that a revision of
the policy decision was undertaken by which the maximum plot size was
restricted to 250 sq. mtrs. Similarly, in respect of units which were
functioning from more than one premises/location the requirement of plot
area of such units were to be clubbed together even if separate
applications had been submitted by such units. Both the aforesaid
decisions, according to the respondents, was prompted by the acute scarcity
of land for the purpose of allotment under the relocation policy. It
appears that the aforesaid decisions in modification of the earlier policy
taken in June 1999 and circulated by Letter/Memorandum dated 20.07.1999
were not taken note of at the time when the appellant was informed of its
provisional eligibility to obtain allotment of two plots (25.04.2000) or
before the formal allotment orders on 07.05.2004 were issued in favour of
the appellant. The aforesaid change of policy that was overlooked however
came to the notice of the respondents before physical possession of the
plots was handed over to the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned
communication dated 08.11.2006 was issued requiring the appellant to
indicate which out of the two plots allotted to it would be retained.

7. If the initial allotment (2 plots) made in favour of the appellant
was contrary to the relocation policy itself the appellant will have no
right to retain both the plots. In fact the allotment being pursuant to a
policy and at prices much lower than the market price no vested right to be
allotted a plot can be recognized. At best a right of fair consideration
alone can be attributed which does not appear to have been breached in the
present case so as to have required correction in exercise of the
jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that paragraph (vii) of
the letter/Memorandum dated 20.07.1999 should be read to mean as covering
only those units whose operations are spread out in more than one location.
On the said basis the application of the aforesaid policy decision to the
present case is questioned. We do not find any justification for giving
such a meaning to the contents of paragraph (vii) of the letter/Memorandum
dated 20.07.1999 in view of the clear language used therein.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn our attention to a
decision of the Delhi High Court in Government of NCT of Delhi Through
Commissioner of Industries Vs. Bhushan Kumar & Anr.[1]. to contend that a
similar matter has been decided in favour of another allottee whereas the
writ petition filed by the appellants on largely similar questions has been
dismissed.

10. We have read and considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court in
the case of Bhushan Kumar (supra). On such reading we find that the facts
in which the aforesaid decision was rendered are not similar to those in
the present case. That apart, the judgment rendered by the Delhi High
Court is presently under challenge before this Court in SLP(C) No. 19581 of
2008. It would therefore be not appropriate for us to examine the
correctness of the said view; neither any such examination would be
required in view of our conclusion that the facts of the present case are
different from those in Bhushan Kumar (supra).

11. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal
which is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

……………….…………………J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
…………….……………………J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]
NEW DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 2, 2014.

———————–
[1] 151 (2008) DLT 158 (DB)

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,763,005 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,855 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com