advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, September 12, 2014

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)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.