DELHI STATE INDUS. DEV. .CORP.LTD. Vs ASHOK KUMAR MADAN
Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA,N.V. RAMANA
Case number: C.A. No.-001087-001087 / 2015
Diary number: 15215 / 2014
Advocates: S. JANANI Vs
Page 1
1
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1087 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 22784 OF 2014)
DELHI STATE INDUS. DEV. CORPN. LTD. ………APPELLANT
Vs.
ASHOK KUMAR MADAN ……RESPONDENT
O R D E R
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment and final order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No.3
of 2013, whereby the High Court has disallowed the
action of the appellant-Corporation in cancellation of
the plot allotted under the “Relocation Scheme” on
Page 2
2
account of non-payment of the initial 50% amount
towards the cost of the plot in terms of order dated
24.1.2001 passed by this Court in M.C.Mehta Vs. Union
of India1 and subsequently dismissed the L.P.A. of the
appellant-Corporation.
The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:-
3. The appellant-Corporation is the agency
implementing the direction of this Court in the case of
M.C.Mehta (supra), for the relocation of industries
that are carrying on business in non conforming areas
or are misusing residential properties. The respondent,
who was running a commercial/industrial establishment
in a residential premises, made an application dated
23.12.1996 for the allotment of a plot under the
“Relocation Scheme” and also furnished a sum of
Rs.60,000/- along with the application. The respondent
was required to make a further deposit of 30% of the
1
(2001) 1 SCALE 420
Page 3
3
tentative cost of the plot, which amounts to
Rs.75,000/-, apart from the earnest money paid along
with the application, which was duly deposited by him
on 09.05.2000. The application of the respondent was
accepted and he was allotted a plot measuring 150 sq.
meters bearing no.57, Pocket-I, Sector-2, Bawana
Industrial Area, Delhi, in accordance with the
allotment letter issued on 23.10.2000. The appellant-
Corporation also informed the respondent that the cost
of the plot stood revised from Rs.3000/- per sq. meter
to Rs.4,200/- per square meter and the respondent was
also required to deposit 50% of the revised estimated
cost, which amounted to Rs.3,15,000/- within a period
of 3 months from 23.10.2000. Pursuant to an order dated
24.01.2001 passed by this Court in M.C.Mehta’s case
(supra), the date for depositing the requisite amount
was subsequently extended to 31.03.2001. The respondent
failed to deposit the said amount despite the extension
of the period given by this Court. The respondent
deposited an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to complete the
payment of 50% of the cost of the plot on 27.11.2001,
instead of the stipulated date i.e. 31.03.2001, without
Page 4
4
any demand and permission from the appellant-
Corporation. The payment challan states that any late
payment or payment without demand would not create any
right upon the property. on 27.07.2004, an aggregate
sum of Rs.4,27,117/-, was deposited by the respondent
on a demand made by an officer of the appellant-
Corporation, to complete the balance payment of 50% of
the cost of the plot as well as the interest for delay
in making payment. Further, on 14.11.2006, the
respondent received a communication from the appellant-
Corporation, demanding certain documents to facilitate
the handing over the possession of the plot to the
respondent. However, the allotment in favour of the
respondent was cancelled on 30.01.2008 and the amount
was refunded with interest on 07.05.2010. Aggrieved by
the cancellation order, the respondent filed Writ
Petition No.8478 of 2010 before the learned single
Judge of the High Court, who disposed of the same in
favour of the respondent vide order dated 03.07.2012,
stating that the appellant-Corporation had not
corrected the mistake committed by its officer and had
remained silent for four years after the receipt of the
Page 5
5
value of the plot. It has further held that the
aforesaid action of the appellant-Corporation shows
that it had accepted the action of the officer.
Further, the respondent had paid interest on the
delayed payment, which was also accepted by the
appellant-Corporation, and therefore the doctrine of
equity is in his favour. Further, no action was taken
against the concerned officer of the appellant-
Corporation by it. Thus, in the absence of any
reasonable explanation as to why the appellant-
Corporation chose to enjoy the money of the respondent
for a period of 4 years without any recourse to him and
without taking any action for the cancellation of the
allotment of the plot, can safely lead to the
conclusion that the appellant-Corporation chose to
accept the action of its Section Officer,
Mr.R.K.Bhatia. Thus, the learned single Judge disposed
of the writ petition and quashed the cancellation
letter dated 30.01.2008, wherein the appellant-
Corporation has cancelled the plot allotted to the
respondent and further the appellant-Corporation was
directed to make available an alternate plot to the
Page 6
6
respondent in case the original plot allotted to the
respondent was not available, within a period of four
weeks from the date of the order.
4. The Division Bench of the High Court also dismissed
the appeal of the appellant-Corporation on the similar
reasons assigned by the learned single Judge. Hence,
this appeal is filed by the appellant-Corporation
seeking to set aside the impugned judgment and order of
the High Court.
5. It is the contention of Mrs. S. Janani, the learned
counsel on behalf of the appellant-Corporation that the
High Court has erred in not considering the fact that
the respondent has failed to make the payment in terms
of the allotment letter and also in accordance with the
directions issued by this Court, whereby the period
stipulated for making payment with regard to the
allotment of land was extended. The High Court has
failed to see that the appellant-Corporation has
Page 7
7
followed the policy of cancellation of allotment in
cases where the initial 50% of payment has not been
deposited in time by the allottees uniformly and any
favourable decision as directed by the High Court in
favour of the respondent would open the flood gates of
litigation and in such circumstances the appellant-
Corporation would be put to great hardship.
6. Further, the paragraphs 3, 11 and 12 of the
allotment letter dated 23.10.2000, clearly state that
in case the payment towards the cost of the plot is not
made within the stipulated time, by the allottees, in
respect of the plot already allotted in favour of the
respondent is likely to be cancelled without any
further notice in this regard. The Delhi Government has
reserved its right to withdraw/reject the offer of
allotment made in favour of the respondent in case of
any discrepancy noticed subsequently after following
due process of law.
Further, it has been contended by the learned
counsel that it is the sole discretion of the Delhi
Page 8
8
Government to allot and cancel the plot allotted in
favour of any allottee, if the conditions stipulated
therein are not complied with by the allottee, without
informing him in this regard.
7. It has been further contended by the learned
counsel that the delay in refunding the amount to the
respondent amounts to a conscious decision on the part
of the appellant-Corporation to accept the belated
payment of the first instalment made by the respondent
towards the allotment of the land. However, the delay
in refunding the amount to the respondent by the
appellant-Corporation cannot be inferred as an
acceptance of the same by it towards the allotment of
the plot in favour of the respondent. The respondent
had not deposited the shortfall amount of 50% of the
cost with its authorization within the stipulated time
and therefore, it cannot be contended that the
respondent was misled by the conduct of the appellant-
Corporation to think that the cut-off date fixed by
this Court has been relaxed by it.
Page 9
9
8. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr.
Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel on behalf of
the respondent that the appellant-Corporation has
accepted the full payment amount with interest towards
the cost of the plot, which was deposited by the
respondent after sanction and approval from one
Mr.R.K.Bhatia, Section Officer of the appellant-
Corporation. However, the appellant-Corporation has
refused to withdraw the cancellation order inspite of
several representations made by the respondent.
9. It has been further contended by him that no
communication was received by the respondent from the
appellant-Corporation that there was any default in the
payment towards the allotment of the plot, when the
respondent had deposited the additional amount of
Rs.1,80,000/- on 27.11.2001, thereby completing the
deposit of the requisite amount of 50% payment of the
total cost of the plot that was made available to the
respondent through the allotment scheme by the Delhi
Page 10
10
Government.
10. It has been further contended that the respondent
had deposited Rs.7,42,117/- on 27.07.2004, which is the
total cost of the plot together with the up to date
interest in response to the newspaper advertisement
published by the appellant-Corporation, asking the
allotees of the Relocation Scheme, who had not made
full payment for the plots allotted to them, to make
full payment along with interest in the office of the
appellant-Corporation within the time stipulated in the
above advertisement. Further, the respondent received
the communication from the appellant-Corporation,
demanding certain documents to facilitate it to hand
over the plot to the respondent, which were duly
furnished by him. However, the handing over of the
possession of the allotted plot was not made to him but
on the other hand, the allotment of the plot to him was
cancelled giving the reason that there was default in
the payment of the instalments on the part of the
respondent, which is factually incorrect.
Page 11
11
11. Further, it has been contended that the contract
between the appellant-Corporation and the respondent is
still subsisting and there is no substantial question
of law in this appeal to interfere with the judgments
and orders of both the learned single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court as they are legal and
valid. It is further urged that the appellant-
Corporation has committed fraud on the respondent and
therefore the appeal of the appellant-Corporation is
not maintainable before this Court. The allotment of
the plot in favour of the respondent was cancelled by
the appellant-Corporation in utter violation of the
principles of natural justice.
12. On the basis of the facts pleaded, the evidence on
record and the rival legal contentions urged on behalf
of the parties, we have to examine whether the
appellant-Corporation is entitled to the relief as
prayed for in this appeal. The answer for the same is
given in the negative.
Page 12
12
13. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Corporation that the respondent had made a
default in the payment of the initial 50% of the cost
of the plot amounting to Rs.3,15,000/- despite the
extension of time given by this Court in the M.C.Mehta
case (supra), i.e. upto 31.03.2001 and instead, he made
the payment directly to the bank without the
authorization of the appellant-Corporation and
therefore, the said deposit made towards the cost of
the allotment of the plot is not valid and therefore it
has cancelled the allotment of the plot in favour of
the respondent. The action of cancellation of the plot
by the appellant-Corporation for the reasons ascribed
above cannot be accepted by us in view of the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein,
on 27.07.2004, an endorsement was made by the officer
of the appellant-Corporation, Mr.R.K.Bhatia, asking the
Bank of Baroda to accept the balance payment payable by
the respondent, thus leading the respondent to a bona
fide belief that the belated payment along with the
interest that was deposited by the respondent has been
Page 13
13
duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation.
14. Further, on a careful examination of the
cancellation letter that was addressed to the
respondent, cancelling the allotment of the plot
allotted to him, the appellant-Corporation had not
given any other reason except admitting the bona fide
mistake on the part of its officer in accepting the
belated payment made by the respondent towards the
allotment of the plot and the delay on the part of the
respondent in making the payment within the stipulated
time period. Thus, the explanation given by the
appellant-Corporation has failed to satisfy the courts
below as well as this Court as the appellant-
Corporation had continued to retain the total amount
deposited by the respondent for more than half a
decade, without even making an attempt to return the
same with interest to the respondent. Further, the
respondent had promptly responded to the newspaper
advertisement dated 27.04.2004, published by the
appellant-Corporation, asking the allottees of the
Page 14
14
plots to make full payment along with the interest in
the office of the appellant-Corporation.
15. Further, as has been rightly held by the Division
Bench of the High Court, that the letter dated
14.11.2006 sent by the appellant-Corporation for
furnishing of certain documents by the respondent, to
facilitate the appellant-Corporation to hand over the
possession of the plot to him, would also indicate that
the appellant-Corporation had condoned the delayed
payment of the cost of the plot on the part of the
respondent and further, there is no allegation made in
the present appeal that the concerned officer of the
appellant-Corporation had colluded with the respondent
or acted in mala fide manner with a view to favour him
by allowing him to deposit the cost of the plot
belatedly. In fact, the deposit of the amount was made
by the respondent pursuant to the opportunity given to
him by the extended time for depositing the amount as
published in the newspaper advertisement.
Page 15
15
16. Thus, the fact that the respondent had paid
interest on the delayed payment to the account of the
appellant-Corporation, which was accepted by it and it
did not take any action either against its officer or
for the return of money to the respondent between the
period 2004-2008, certainly created equity in favour of
the respondent, as observed by the learned Single Judge
and the judgment and order was rightly confirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court.
17. The appellant-Corporation has failed to satisfy
this Court with cogent and reasonable explanation as to
why the money paid by the respondent for the allotment
of the plot was not returned to him by the appellant-
Corporation which has led him to believe that his
delayed payment towards the cost of the allotted plot
had been accepted by the appellant-Corporation. Thus,
in our considered view, there is no merit in the above
contentions urged by the learned counsel on behalf of
the appellant-Corporation and the respondent has been
Page 16
16
wrongfully denied the benefit of allotment of the plot.
Therefore, the quashing of the cancellation of the
allotted plot by the High Court is legal and valid, the
same does not warrant interference by this Court.
18. Thus, we direct the appellant-Corporation to re-
allot the plot originally allotted to the respondent,
i.e. Plot No.57, Pocket-I, Sector-2, Bawana Industrial
Area, Delhi, and if the same is not available, an
alternative plot, in the same Bawana Industrial Area or
any other proximate area be allotted to him within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the
copy of this order. The discretionary power exercised
by the learned single Judge of the High Court which is
confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court need
not be interfered with by this Court as no case is made
out. The appeal is dismissed.
……………………………………………………………J.
[V. GOPALA GOWDA]
……………………………………………………………J.
Page 17
17
[N.V. RAMANA]
New Delhi, January 21, 2015