Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. vs Association Of Plot Holders And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 661 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 613/2001 and 7/2002. These L.P.As. raise common questions of fact and law. The facts lie in a narrow compass. These are:-

2. In the year 1982, the Director of Industries invited applications for allotment of industrial plots in an industrial estate which was to be developed at Okhla, New Delhi. Pursuant thereto large number of persons applied for allotment of plots. The applications of the applicants including the respondents were registered in the year 1982 on their depositing Rs. 2,000/-each. On scrutiny it was proposed to allot 177 plots. on 8th February, 1983, the Directorate of Industries, respondent No.2, informed the respondents that their names are included in the draw of lots. On 7th June, 1983 draw of lots were held and the respondents were found successful. On 24th June, 1983 the respondents were informed that they had been allotted plots at the rate of Rs. 245/- per square metre. It is not disputed that out of 177 candidates selected for allotment, only 101 candidates were given possession of the plots allotted to them. The respondents/allottees in all with 76 other applicants were not given possession of the plots as the remaining plots were under encroachment. Subsequently, 76 more plots were acquired and developed and on 18th May, 1993, the respondents by separate letters of the Deputy Director of Industries (Land) were informed that the draw of lots for allotment was held on 29th April, 1993 and as a result thereof specific plots were allotted to them at the provisionally determined premium of Rs. 930/- per square metre which was liable to upward revision depending upon the final calculation of the cost of the land. The respondents were informed that the amounts worked out on the basis of the aforesaid rate be deposited within ninety days of the issuance of the letters by means of bank drafts/postal orders payable in favor of the Commissioner of Industries, Delhi. In the event of default in payment of the premium within the stipulated period the respondents were required to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the balance amount due from them. The respondents were also required to send their acceptance to the offers made to them within ten days. Consequent to the receipt of the letters, the respondents accepted the offers and made the payments within the stipulated period. On 7th December, 1993, the appellant, sent communications to the respondents requiring them to have the lease deeds prepared by the office of the Commissioner of Industries stamped from the Collector of Stamps, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The respondents, accordingly, deposited Rs. 11,994/- each by way of stamp duty and other charges and after collecting the duly stamped lease deeds presented the same before the Commissioner of Industries in December 1993 for execution.

3. On 4th January, 1994, the Commissioner of Industries directed the respondents to deposit conveyance fee of Rs. 32/- each. Pursuant thereto each of the respondents deposited the requisite conveyance fee. Despite the fact that the respondents carried out their part of the obligation in depositing the cost of the land and the stamped lease deals with the Commissioner of Industries, the possession of the lands were not given to them nor the conveyance deeds duly executed were handed over to them. The same position prevailed in case of other candidates who were made allotments in the year 1993. On 22nd August, 1995, several petitions including CWP No. 3770/95 were filed seeking mandamus directing delivery of possession of the plots of the allottees who were issued letters of allotments. On 1st October, 1996 the Division Bench, before whom the matter came up, allowed the writ petitions and directed the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Commissioner of Industries to execute the lease deeds so as to materialise the allotment of plots made by them to the respondents/allottees. It was also directed that in case any incidental formality was required to be fulfillled by any of the respondents, that should be done within a period of four weeks on intimation in that regard being sent by the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Commissioner of Industries within a period of four weeks. Besides, it was also directed that execution of lease deeds and delivery of possession should take place within a period of three months from 1st July, 1996. Liberty, however, was granted to the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Commissioner of Industries to scrutinise and verify if by intervention of subsequent events any of the respondents had ceased to be entitled or had become disentitled for allotment of a plots under the scheme. The decision of the Division Bench was assailed by the appellants herein in an S.L.P. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the S.L.P.

4. On 12th September, 1997, the Deputy Director of Industries intimated to the 76 allottees that final pre-determined rate of the plots had been fixed at Rs. 4,072/- per square metre. Consequently, each of the allottees were required to deposit balance amount of premium payable by him within ninety days of the issuance of the aforesaid letter. The two respondents and the association of plot holders filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 5535/1997, challenging the aforesaid demand of the appellants.

5. It was contended on behalf of the association of plot holders that the plot holders were entitled to be charged as per the land rate of 1983 failing which they were liable to pay land rate of 1993 which was Rs. 930/- per sq. mt., especially when they had completed all the requirements and had paid the conveyance fee in the year 1983 itself. On the other hand, the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Commissioner of Industries, inter alia, contended that the rate of Rs. 4,072/- per square metre was chargeable from the allottees, being the land rate for the year 1997.

6. The learned Single Judge by an elaborate and well reasoned order came to the conclusion that the allottees cannot be charged Rs.4,072/- per square metre which was the rate demanded from them in the month of September 1997 by the Deputy Director of Industries. The learned Single Judge directed that the allottees be charged at the rate of Rs. 1,963/- per square metre, the rate leviable in the year 1993. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge required the allottees to pay difference between Rs. 930/- per square metre paid by them in 1993 and Rs., 1,963/- per square metre. The allottees were directed to pay the difference along with interest at 6% per annum calculated up to 31st August, 2001. The payment was required to be made within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. The appellants, the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Commissioner of Industries, have called in question the order of the learned Single Judge by means of the instant letters patent appeals. It may be pointed out that the aforesaid allottees also filed L.P.A. No.s. 655/2001 and 567/2001. In the L.P.As. filed by the allottees it was claimed that the learned Single Judge ought to have held that the appellants were only entitled to charge land rates of 1983 from the allottees. Since the learned Single Judge had directed them to pay Rs. 1963/- per square metre, they found the same to be unreasonable. The allottees, however, withdrew the appeals by stating before us that they were willing to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, we are only to deal with the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi against the order of the learned Single Judge.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the rates for industrial plots obtaining in South Zone for the year 1997-98 was made applicable to the plots in question. This was done after a meeting was convened in the office of the Chief Secretary on 3rd July, 1997 in which the Principal Secretary, Urban Development; the representatives of the land and building department; the MCD and the DSIDC were present. It was also submitted that the decision of the appellants was in conformity with the initial letters of allotment issued to the allottees dated 18th May, 1993, in which it was specifically pointed out that the provisional premium of the plot had been fixed at Rs. 930/- per square metre which was liable to upward revision depending upon the final calculation of cost. It was also claimed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the pre-determined rate for industrial plots for the year 1997-98 were highly substantive rates. The learned counsel canvassed that the learned Single Judge was not right in applying with the pre-determined rates for the year 1993 for the plot in question. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the allottees submitted that the allottees had been allotted plots in 1983 and for no fault of theirs, possession of the land was not given to them. Again, the allottees were made fresh allotments in the year 1993. The possession of the plots were only offered in the year 1997 without any justification or explanation for the abusive delay in offering the possession of the plots. The learned counsel contends that the allottees should be charged the predetermined rates for the year 1983 failing which they should be charged the pre-determined rates of the year 1993.

8. We have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the stand of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi is devoid of any substance and, to say that least, is unreasonable, against equity and law. It is not in dispute that on June 7, 1983 draw of lots was held in which 177 applicants were found to be successful. On June 24/26, 1983 they were informed that plots had been allotted in their favor at the rate of Rs. 245/- per square metre. Out of 177 applicants, 76 applicants failed to secure possession of the land from the Govt. of NCT of Delhi because of the failure of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to protect the land from encroachers. These 76 allottees were deprived of the possession of the plots without any fault on their part. In case these allottees were given possession of the plots in the year 1983, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi would have charged them at the rate of Rs. 245/- per square metre as was charged from other allottees who were fortunate enough to receive possession of the plots in the year 1983. It is also not disputed that by a letter dated June 18, 1993 to the remaining 76 applicants, the Deputy Director of Industries informed them that a draw of lots was held on April 29, 1993. They were also offered specific plots at a premium of Rs. 930/- which was liable to upward revision subject to the final calculation of the cost of the land. There is no dispute that the allottees accepted the offer and deposited the amounts demanded from them by means of bank drafts/postal orders payable in favor of the Commissioner of Industries. Subsequently, on October 7, 1993, the Assistant Director of Industries (Land) sent lease deeds to the allottees for the purpose of having them stamped by the Collector of Stamps, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The allottees, pursuant to the communications of the Assistant Director of Industries (Land), deposited a sum of Rs. 11,994/- each as stamp duty and other charges with the concerned authority. The lease deeds after being stamped by the Collector of Stamps were sent to the Commissioner of Industries in December 1993 for the purpose of execution of the lease deeds by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The Commissioner of Industries thereafter on January 4, 1994 required the allottees to deposit conveyance fee of Rs. 32/- each. Even that was done but for inexplicable reasons the Commissioner of Industries and the Govt. of NCT of Delhi did not hand over possession of the plots to the allottees even though the allottees had done everything which they were asked to do by the appellants. It is not the case of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi that the allottees did not comply with the requisite formalities or failed to deposit the premium determined at the rate of Rs. 930/-per square metre. The allottees not being able to secure the possession of the plots filed several writ petitions seeking mandamus for directing the appellants to deliver possession of the plots. A Division Bench of this Court on October 1, 1996 accepted the writ petitions of the allottees and directed the Commissioner of Industries to execute the lease deeds so as to materialise the allotment of plots made by them to the allottees. It is interesting to note that even before the earlier Division Bench, the appellants did not offer any explanation as to why they failed to execute the lease deeds or to hand over possession of the plots. The Division Bench held that there was no reason why the appellants should not be held bound by their promise and made to honour the commitment which they had already made to the allottees. Despite the order of the Division Bench, instead of handing over possession of the plots and the lease deeds, the appellants asked the allottees by their letter dated September 12, 1997 to deposit further premium for the plots at the rate of Rs. 1,072/- per square metre. It has been admitted in the counter-affidavit that it was decided in the meeting convened in the office of the Chief Secretary on July 3, 1997 to charge from the allottees pre-determined rate fixed by the D.D.A. for industrial plots obtaining in the South Zone for 1997-98. The decision of the appellants to charge 1997-98 rates amounts to taking advantage of their own wrong in not handing over the possession of the lands to the allottees in the year 1993. There may be some justification for not handing over the possession of the plots in the year 1983 on account of encroachment of the land, but there is no justification nor the same has been pleaded by the appellants for not executing the lease deeds and handing over the possession of the lands to the allottees in the year 1993. In this regard neither any material has been placed on record nor any explanation has been rendered by the appellants. It is not even the case of the appellants that the plots in respect of which the premium at the rate of Rs. 930/- per square metre was paid by the allottees in 1993 were not available with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi in the year 1993-94. Since the plots were available there was no justification for the appellants to hold back the possession in the year 1993-94 and ask the allottees to pay at the rate of Rs. 4,072/- per square metre which was D.D.A.'s pre-determined rate for industrial plots obtaining in the South Zone in the year 1997-98. These rates were wrongly made applicable to the plots which were allotted to the allottees in the year 1993. It is admitted by the appellants in the counter-affidavit that the pre-determined rates of the D.D.A. for plots in the year 1992 were Rs. 1,636/- per square metre. It is also not in dispute that the allotment of plots by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi had to be made to the allottees at no profit no loss basis. But there is nothing to show that such a determination was made by it before adopting the land rates of the D.D.A. for industrial plots obtaining in the South Zone in the year 1997-98. There is no controversy that in case the lease deeds had been executed in favor of the respondents and possession of plots had been handed over to them in the year 1983 along with those who succeeded in getting the possession of plots, the respondents would had to pay only Rs. 245/- per square metre. Again, in case the appellants had handed over the plots to the respondents in the year 1992-93, which was entirely in the hands of the appellants, the latter, without dispute, would have paid for the plots at the rate of Rs. 1,636/-. Since the appellants failed to execute the lease deeds and hand over possession of the plots in the year 1993 when the respondents had complied with all the requirements of the appellants, the land rates of the year 1993 ought to have been demanded from the respondents. Right from the year 1983 the allottees have been waiting for the possession of the plots which has eluded them all these years. The allottees were made to suffer because of sheer lethargy and inaction on the part of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and its lack of will to protect the land from encroachments. For all these reasons, the respondents can not be asked to pay at the rate of Rs. 4,072/- per square metre.

9. In the circumstances, therefore, we uphold the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeals fails and are hereby dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 10,000/-.