Shakti Cottage Industries And ... vs Delhi Development Authority
2000 Latest Caselaw 260 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Sharma, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioners seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Respondent by quashing the demand for payment of the rates of premium at Rs. 214/- per sq. meter for 237 sq. meters and at Rs. 1306/-per sq. meter for 162 sq. meters. In the writ petition, a further relief is sought for restraining the Respondent from recovering premium for the plot of land situated at T-1/93, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase-I, Delhi, at a rate higher than Rs. 200/- per sq. meter for the entire area.

2. The Petitioners in 1973 started the business of manufacturing machinery in property No. 1022, Gali Chabuk Sawar, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi. It is stated that as per the Master Plan and Zonal Plan the said area is a non-conforming area which otherwise means that the said plot of land cannot be used for carrying on industrial activities.

3. In 1976 the Respondent announced a scheme whereby it undertook to develop four industrial areas, Patpar Ganj Industrial Area in the East, Hyderpur Industrial Area in the North, Mangol Puri Industrial area in the West and Okhla Industrial Area in the South. Under the aforesaid scheme, non-conforming industrial units were given an option to apply for allotment of plots in one of the aforesaid industrial areas. The rates for the said plots were as follows :-

Size of plot (in sq. meters) Rates Per sq. meter (in Rs.)

1. Upto 500 200

2. More than 500 upto 1000 180

3. More than 1000 upto 2000 160

Pursuant to the aforesaid scheme and to take advantage of the said scheme, the Petitioners deposited an amount of Rs. 1,000/- and submitted the form No. 3474 seeking for allotment of 840 sq.meters of land. Later on the Respondent revised the said policy and prescribed that 30% of the price of the plot shall have to be deposited in advance along with the application form. As the Petitioners did not have funds to deposit 30% of the premium of a plot of land measuring 840 sq.meters, they submitted on 12.11.1976 another form No. 254 applying for allotment of a plot of land measuring 400 sq.meters along with the treasury challan for Rs. 24,000/- being 30% of the premium for a plot of 400 sq.meters.

4. By letter dated 3.2.1981 the Respondent informed the Petitioners that a decision had been taken to allot to the Petitioners an industrial plot, out of the plots which were being developed near Mangol Puri. It was also intimated that the plots were going to be carved out soon and the date for draw of lots for specific allotment would be intimated to the Petitioners and thereafter demand letter would be issued. On 18.6.1984 a further communication was sent to the Petitioners by the Respondent intimating the Petitioners that a decision had been taken to allot to the Petitioners a plot of land measuring 400 sq.meters approximately on perpetual lease hold basis for shifting their industrial unit form the present non-conforming location. It was also intimated that the aforesaid allotment is on the specific condition that within 30 months from the date of possession of the plot, use of the present premises for the purpose of any manufacturing process or running of any industry, would be stopped. In the said letter it was also intimated that the Petitioners shall have to pay for 237 sq.meters at Rs. 200/- per sq.meter and for the balance 163 sq.meter at Rs. 420/- per sq.meter. The said letter is annexed to the petition as 'Annexure A-3'.

5. It is stated in the petition that the Petitioners were surprised to receive a letter from the Respondent on or about 11.10.1985 intimating the Petitioners that a plot of land measuring 399 sq.meters is being allotted to the Petitioners at a premium of Rs. 214/- per sq.meter for 237 sq.meters and at a premium for the excess area, that is, 162 sq.meters at Rs. 1306/- per sq.meter. Immediately the Petitioners filed a representation, but the said representation of the Petitioners were rejected by the competent Authority and the Petitioners were directed to make the payment as per the demand letter dated 11.10.1985 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum upto the date of payment. It was further intimated that failing payment in terms of the aforesaid order, offer for allotment of the plot would be treated as withdrawn. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioners filed the present writ petition in this Court.

6. On 12.3.1987 while issuing Rule in the petition, an interim order was passed by this Court to the effect that allotment of plot No. T-1/93, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase-I, Delhi would not be concelled conditional on the Petitioner depositing the amount as worked out on the basis of the letter dated 18.6.1984 which is 'Annexure A-3'. The said order came to be made absolute on 23.7.1987 when this Court ordered that if ultimately the writ petition is dismissed, the Petitioners would be liable to pay 18% interest with yearly interest on the excess amount demanded by the respondent. It was also ordered that the Petitioners would not in any way alienate, transfer or part with possession of the land as and when the possession of the same is handed over to the Petitioners.

7. The respondent/DDA contested the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that the Petitioners were allotted the aforesaid plot bearing No. T-1/93, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase - II measuring about 300 sq.meters for the programme of shifting of industries from the non-conforming to the conforming areas. It was also stated that the entitlement of the Petitioners was for an area of 237 sq.meters and, therefore, for the said area rate was fixed at Rs. 200/- per sq. meter. It was also stated on behalf of the Respondent that the aforesaid fixation of rate was tentative and subject to revision as was made clear in the letter dated 18.6.1984. It was also stated that the Petitioners unit was entitled to a plot of land measuring 237 sq. meters and the actual allotment made to the unit was for an area of 399 sq. meters and, therefore, in terms of the policy decision arrived at by the respondent, the Respondent charged for an area of 237 sq. meters at the rate of the reserved price and for the balance area at the market rate prevailing on the date of approval. It was also staled that subsequently on the basis of the policy formulated by the Delhi Development Authority, a demand letter was issued vide letter dated 26.2.1987 charging at Rs. 214/- per sq. meter for an area of 237 sq. meters and at Rs. 1306A per sq. meter for an area over and above the entitlement area.

8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent having decided some time in 1976 that the rates applicable for the developed plot upto 500 sq. meters would be charged at Rs. 200/- per sq. meter, the Respondent could not have at a subsequent stage raised the rates and demanded a higher price from the Petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners also submitted that the principle of promissory estoppel is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the Respondent is a public body and is bound by the announcement made by it in 1976 and, therefore, it cannot arbitrarily and in unfair manner raise the rates of premium again and again. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Paradise Printers and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors.; , The Atam Nagar Co-operative House Bldg. Society Ltd., Ludhiana v. State of Punjab and Ors.; , Moolchand Shamlal v. Food Corporation; reported in 1997 Rajdhani Law Reporter 45, Vijay Kumar Ganeja v. D.D.A.: reported in 1990 Rajdhani Law Reporter 436 and Ashok Kumar Behal and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors.; reported in 1993 Rajdhani Law Reporter (DB) 526.

9. Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that what the Petitioners have sought to challenge here is the policy decision of the Government which cannot be interfered with under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted by her that at the time when the announcement was made for development of the aforesaid industrial areas and also while intimating the Petitioners regarding the decision to allot to the Petitioners an area of 400 sq. meters, the rates fixed were tentative and were subject to revision which was subsequently revised and finalised through the policy decision and, therefore, the Petitioners are liable to pay in accordance with the aforesaid policy decision. She also submitted that fixation of price of plots of land is exclusively within the domain and discretion of the Executive and the same cannot be challenged through a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of her contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in R.K. Kawatra, etc. v. D.S.I.D.C., etc.; , Ramanand v. Union of India and Ors.; reported in AIR 1994 Delhi 29 (Full Bench), Jai Parkash Tyagi v. Delhi Development Authority; reported in 1997 V AD (Delhi) 873; Sitaram Sugar Co., Ltd., and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.; , Bareilly Development Authority and Anr. v. Ajay Pal Singh and Ors.; and Khurseed Jahan v. Delhi Development Authority; reported in 1997 III (Delhi) 1053.

10. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and decisions relied upon by the counsel for the parties, let me proceed to decide the merit of the present petition.

11. It is an admitted position that in spite of the allotment of the aforesaid alternative plot of land at Mangol Puri Industrial Area, the Petitioners continue to be in possession and operate from the property No. 1022, Gali Chabuk Sawar, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi. The allotment of plot of land at Mangol Puri Industrial Area, is therefore, in addition to the aforesaid property held by the Petitioners. In 1976, an announcement was made by the Delhi Development Authority that four areas within Delhi are being developed for establishment of Industrial Area. Information was given to the non-conforming industrial units giving them an option to apply for allotment of plots in one of the aforesaid industrial scheme. In the said announcement it was also stated that rates to be charged for different types of developed plots would be at the price mentioned therein and for a plot of land measuring 500 sq.meters, the rate shown was Rs. 200/- per sq.meter. The letter dated 3.2.1981 which is annexed to the writ petition as 'Annexure A-2' would indicate that a decision was taken by the Respondent to allot an industrial plot to the Petitioners in Mangol Puri Industrial Area which is being developed for development as an Industrial Area. The said letter further indicates that plots arc in the process of being carved out and that the draw of lots would be held only after the plots are carved out. Reference may also be made to the intimation dated 18.6.1984 on which the Petitioners seek to put a strong reliance contending, inter alia, that the rates cannot be enhanced by the Respondent than what is stated in the said letter. This letter, therefore, is required to be given a closer look in order to decide the controversy between the parties. The said letter dated 18.6.1984 is annexed as 'Annexure A-3' whereby, the Petitioners were intimated that a plot of land measuring 400 sq.meters approximately has been decided to be allotted to the Petitioners to enable them to shift their industry from the present non-conforming location. By the said letter the Petitioners were advised to deposit an amount for 237 sq.meters at Rs. 200/- per sq.meter and for 163 sq.meters at the rate of Rs. 420/- per sq.meter. Paragraph 3 of the said letter is very relevant which states that the aforesaid rate mentioned in paragraph 2 is subject to revision of rates, variation in size of plot and requirement of layout plan. Even the letter is shown to be provisional as indicated at the top of the letter itself.

12. On 11.10.1985 a further letter came to be issued to the Petitioners intimating them the decision of the Respondent to allot a plot of land measuring 399 sq.meters approximately to enable the Petitioners for shifting of their industry from the non-conforming location. In the said letter it was specifically mentioned that the total premium payable for the "aforesaid plot of land at Mangol Puri Industrial unit would be Rs. 214/-

per sq. meter for 237 sq. meters and at Rs. 1306/- per sq. meter for the excess area, that is, 162 sq. meter. The said rates were also made subject to revision of rates, variation in size of plot and requirement of layout plan. In justification of the aforesaid demand, the Respondent had stated that under the scheme formulated for shifting of industries from non-conforming to conforming area, it was decided that those who had an area upto 100 sq. meters would be allotted plots of 200 sq. meters and those who had an area above 100 sq. meters would be allotted plots of 400 sq. meters. It is also the case of the Respondent that as per the survey conducted by the respondent-Authority, the Petitioners industry had a covered area of 142 sq. yards, i.e., 118.72 sq. meters and thus it was entitled to a plot of 237 sq. meters and as the Petitioners industry was allotted a plot of 400 sq. meters, 137 sq.meters were given at reserve price of Rs. 214/- per sq. meter and for the excess 163 sq. meters of land the rate prevailing on the date of approval of the said allotment was charged from the Petitioners.

13. Counsel for the Petitioners sought to take up a plea of discrimination as against allotment of land so far M/s. Bansal Box and Corrugating Industries is concerned. During the course of his submissions, counsel for the Petitioners submitted that so far M/s. Bansal Box and Corrugating Industries is concerned, rate of premium has been charged only at Rs. 200/- per sq. meter whereas a higher rate is being charged from the Petitioners. The said plea is found to be baseless and without merit for according to the survey conducted by the respondent-Authority M/s. Bansal Box and Corrugating Industries had a covered area of 444 sq.yards, i.e. 372.95 sq. meters and, therefore, under the scheme the said industry was entitled to an area of 745.90 sq. meters and as against the said entitlement M/s. Bansal Box and Corrugating Industries was allotted a plot of only 399 sq. meters at a reserve price of Rs. 200/- per sq. meter and thus no case of discrimination is made out on the basis of the aforesaid facts. The submission of the counsel for the Petitioners on that score, therefore, fails.

14. The demand letter dated 18.6.1984 was issued to the Petitioners on a provisional basis and the revised rates fixed under the said demand letter were also made subject to revision of rates, variation in size of plots and requirement of layout plan. Therefore, no finality could be attached to the aforesaid demand letter and the Petitioners were aware even at that point of time that the rate of premium fixed by the spondent could be revised at a later stage. Subsequently as a policy decision, it was decided by the Respondent fixing the rate of the reserve price at Rs. 214/- per sq. meter for the area of the entitlement and for the balance area at the market rate on the date of approval. The same is a policy decision of the Respondent which was in fact adopted after making it clear to the Petitioners at the earlier stage that it is likely to be revised at a later stage. The Petitioners were fully aware that the rate charged could be revised later on and still chose to take the opportunity of getting allotment of land and, therefore, cannot refuse to pay in terms of demand as per the policy. There fore, the plea of promissory estoppel as sought to be raised by the Petitioners is without any merit.

15. In M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and Anr., (supra), the Supreme Court has held that price fixation is not within the province of the courts and that judicial function in respect of such matters is exhausted when there is found to be a rational basis for the conclusions reached by the concerned authority. It was further held that judicial review is not concerned with matters of economic policy and that the Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or its agents as to matters within the province of either and the Court does not supplant the "feel of the expert" by its own views.

16. The Petitioners herein have not challenged the scheme of fixation of two rates of premium, one for the area of entitlement and for the balance amount at the market rate on the date of approval.

17. In Ramanand (supra), it was held by the Full Bench that the premium chargeable from the allottee is to be calculated at pre-determined rates prevailing on the date when the offer is made to him by the Delhi Development Authority for allotment of a specific plot of land in a particular area or zone under the Nazul Rules. In R.K. Kawatra etc, (supra), it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that in the matter of allotment of plots by the Government, price fixation of plots is a matter of policy and not within the province of the Courts and in coming to the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench followed the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. (supra). The facts of the aforesaid decisions are found to be akin to the one in hand. In the Division Bench decision of this Court, it was held that, the 1977 policy was purely tentative and no promises or assurances were held out therein. It was found that the Petitioners were fully aware of this fact and were waiting for the final policy to emerge and when the final policy was announced in 1987, they subscribed to the same and took benefits under it by getting allotment of plots. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench held that doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be at all attracted.

18. In my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and in that view of the matter, the decisions relied upon by the counsel appearing for the Petitioners in The Atam Nagar Co-operative House Bldg. Society Ltd., Ludhiana, Moolchand Shamlal and Vijay Kumar Ganeja (supra) are not applicable. So far the decision in Paradise Printers and others (supra) is concerned, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the facts of both the cases are distinguishable. The said plea of applicability of the principle of promissory estoppel is without any merit.

19. In the result, there is no merit in this petition and the petition is dismissed. The Petitioners are given four weeks time to make payment of the balance amount in terms of the demand of the Respondent. The Petitioners are also liable to pay 18% interest with yearly interest on the excess amount demanded by the Respondent in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 23.7.1987. The entire amount demanded by the Respondent along with the aforesaid rate of interest on the said amount shall be paid by the Petitioners within four seeks from today failing which, the allotment made in favour of the Petitioners would stand cancelled. In the facts and circumstances of the ease, I, however, do not pass any order for costs.