Amar Nath Behal And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1991 Latest Caselaw 235 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) At the outset the petitioner has moved an application for amendment of the writ petition. The said application Along with the amended writ and the annexures thereto are taken on record.

(2) The prayer of the petitioner is that the flats which were allotted to the petitioners who are or were employees of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking should be allotted to them permanently on ownership basis.

(3) These flats were allotted to the petitioner in Tripolia Colony. Most of the contentions which have been raised in the writ petition has already been dealt with by us in an identical case of Jagdish Prasad and others v. M.C.D and others, Cw 2899/89, which were dismissed by us on 14.3.91.

(4) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are some documents which had not yet been filed in the earlier writ petition of Jagdish Prasad and if now taken into consideration would show that the principles of promissory estoppel are clearly applicable. In our opinion, this is not so. The petitioners even now have not placed any letter of allotment in their favor. There is no resolution, admittedly, of Delhi Electricity Supply Committee agreeing to transfer the ownership of the flats in the names of any of the petitioners. There is no document on the record even now where any promise was held out to any of the petitioners that the ownership will be transferred to them. It is, however, stated that the petitioners could get electricity connection on the basis that the premises were their private premises. We, however find that the electricity connection was given to them at concessional rates applicable to the employees. The allotment of the flats were made to the petitioners in their capacity as employees of DES.U- It is further admitted that till today rent is payable by the petitioners to the respondents, No purchase price has at an time been demanded or paid either in lum sump or in Installments. On facts of this case we do not find that any promise was held out to the petitioners that the property in the flats would be transferred to them. Therefore, the principles of promissory estoppel do not apply. That apart from there can be no estoppel against an statute. According to Section 200(D) of the Mcd Act no property can be transferred except at the market price. The petitioners are claiming a transfer of the flats In their favor now at a price stated to have been fixed or agreed to more than 3 decades earlier. They want to pay prices as of 1957. This is clearly contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 200(D) and any proposed sale in contravention of Section 200(D) would be ultra vires.

(5) For the aforesaid reasons and also for the reason contained in our judgment dated 14 3.1991 in Cw 2899/89 this petition is dismissed. Interim orders are vacated.