M/s Jai Bhagwan Goel Dal Mill Vs Delhi State Indus.& Infr.Dev.Cor.Ld.&anr

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