M/S JAI BHAGWAN GOEL DAL MILL Vs DELHI STATE INDUS.& INFR.DEV.COR.LD.&ANR
Bench: RANJAN GOGOI,R.K. AGRAWAL
Case number: C.A. No.-005613-005613 / 2010
Diary number: 511 / 2010
Advocates: S. L. ANEJA Vs
ANIL KATIYAR
Page 1
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
1
Page 2
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.
2
Page 3
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
3
Page 4
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.
4
Page 5
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
5
Page 6
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
6
Page 7
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
7
Page 8
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.
1 151 (2008) DLT 158 (DB)
8
Page 9
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.
9