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