Yashpal Madan And Ors. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. [Along ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 992 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

Page 1562

1. These 16 petitions raise common issues, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The pleadings are complete in Yashpal Madan and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. WP (C) 10048-52/2004. Therefore, the matters have been heard on the basis of the pleadings of this petition.

2. The petitioners had to shut down their industrial undertakings/units which were being run in Delhi in non-conforming areas/residential areas pursuant to orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India . The Supreme Court had directed the shutting down of industries in the non-conforming/residential areas and had also directed that the same be relocated in industrial areas. The DSIDC was made responsible for devising a scheme for relocation of such non-conforming industries/undertakings which were running prior to 1996. The relocation scheme was introduced in 1996 itself. Thereafter, the respondents invited applications from eligible persons in 1996 for allotment of industrial plots in authorised industrial areas developed/to be developed by the Page 1563 authorities for the purposes of relocating the industrial units. The petitioners are all applicants pursuant to the said policy.

3. The petitioners applied for industrial plots at the Narela Industrial Complex developed by DSIDC. The DSIDC brought out a brochure in respect of the said relocation scheme of 1996. Annexed to the brochure was the proforma of the application form which was to be submitted by the applicants. An instruction sheet for filling in the application form was also annexed to the application form. This contained the guidelines. Under the heading "General", paragraph 1 prescribed the eligibility conditions as under:

GENERAL:

1. Eligibility:

(i) Non-conforming industrial units working in residential and/or other non-conforming areas which are non-hazardous, non-noxious, and non-polluting shall be considered for allotment of flatted factory/industrial plot for relocation.

(ii) No new industrial unit shall be considered for allotment in the Flatted Factory Complexes/Industrial areas proposed to be developed.

Paragraph 4 thereof provided for the location of industrial flats/plots and the same read as under:

Location of Industrial Flats/Plots:

(i) The Department of Industries, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi proposes to construct and allot flats having floor area of about 50 sq. mtrs. In the four storeyed blocks of flatted factories complexes being set-up at the following locations for specific group of industries mentioned tentatively against each on self-financing basis:

 Sl.  Location          Approx. No. of      Group of
No.                    Flatted/Factories   Industries
1.  Jhilmil Indl. Area,
    Shahdara, Delhi.      750           Electrical Appliances
                                        & Fittings, Ready-made
                                        Garments, Handicraft,
                                        Light Engineering
2. Patparganj Indl. Area,
   New Delhi              100           Electronics/Tele-
                                        communication/Computers
3. Okhla Indl. Estate,
   Delhi                  300           Electronics/Tele-
                                        communication/Computers
4. Badli Indl. Estate,
   Delhi                  650           Leather Goods, Hosiery &
                                        Light Engineering
5. Narela Indl. Complex,
   Delhi                 3500           Light Engg., Wood & Paper
                                        Products, Hosiery, Leather
                                        Goods, Plastic with hand
                                        moulding machines.
 

(ii) Industrial Plots measuring 100 to 400 sq. mtrs. And flatted factories having floor area of about 50 sq. mtrs. Are also proposed to be developed/constructed and allotted at new locations in North Delhi.
 

Page 1564
 

(iii) Industrial Unit who do not need water for their manufacturing activities and require up to 7.5 KW only shall be considered for allotment in the Flatted Factory Complexes.
 

(iv) If an applicant unit is in possession an industrial area plot/shed/flat in approved industrial area of Delhi in his own name in case of proprietary concern, in the name of any of the partners in case of partnership firm or in the name of any of the Directors in case of a Pvt. Ltd./Ltd. Company, it shall not be considered for allotment of industrial accommodation under this Scheme of relocation. Such units shall have to close down and shift to the premises already in their possession in the approved industrial area. Similarly, if an applicant unit had been allotted plot under earlier shifting programme of D.D.A. but is still continuing activities in the residential/non-conforming area then he shall not be considered for allotment under this Scheme.

Paragraph 5, which is the bone of contention in the present petitions, is concerned with the estimated cost of industrial flats/plots. The same reads as under:

5. Estimated Cost of Industrial Flat/Plot

The estimated cost of one flatted factory shall be around Rs. 7.0 lakhs and that of industrial plot shall be approx. Rs. 3,000/- per sq. mtr. These are only estimated figures and are subject to changes depending upon the cost of acquisition, cost of construction/development, location of flatted factory complexes/industrial area, other inputs etc.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the grievance of the petitioners is that while the land price for the Narela Industrial Complex was fixed at Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre in 2001 (after all development works had been carried out), the petitioners were issued notices/allotment letters on 07.05.2004 indicating a hiked up land price of Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre. They are aggrieved, because, according to them, the increase in the land prices from Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre is arbitrary and without any reasonable basis. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in respect of the allotments made at the Bawana Industrial Area, several writ petitions had been filed before this Court. Those writ petitions were WP(C) 1150/2001 entitled Bawana Relocated Industrial Plot owners v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. connected matters. The writ petitions were disposed of on 31.03.2003 by a judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It is . The contention in those petitions was with regard to the enhancement of the land rate from Rs. 3000/- per sq. metre to Rs. 4,200/- per sq. metre. I shall advert to the said judgment later.

5. The petitioners pointed out that while the petitioners had applied in 1996, they were given letters of eligibility in 2001. At the time of application, the indicated price was Rs. 3,000/- per sq. metre. It was, however, enhanced to Rs. 4,200/- per sq. metre in the year 2002 in respect of the allotments made in Page 1565 Bawana. The petitioners were ultimately issued a notice dated 07.05.2004 where the price of Rs. 4,200/- was increased to Rs. 5,400/- and that was also struck out and the figure of Rs. 7,776/- was stamped thereon.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 wherein it is stated that the rates of industrial plots to be allotted for industries to be relocated were fixed after taking into consideration the rates notified by DDA and the same were fixed in consultation with the Finance Department of the Delhi Government with the approval of the Lt. Governor of Delhi. Paragraph 2 of the said counter-affidavit indicates that the industrial plots, insofar as Narela Industrial Area was concerned, were to be priced at Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, it was stated that the Finance Department had observed that the above rate was to be made applicable to the allotment offers made on or after 01.01.2001 and that the land rates were to be revised on an annual basis w.e.f. 01.01.2002. Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit reveals that as per the policy, "the rate of unearned increase is calculated by adding 20% of rate of the preceding year and, accordingly, the rate of annual revision of the price of the industrial plots has also been fixed at 20% of the rate of of the preceding year". It is on this basis that the price of Rs. 5,400/- fixed in 2001 was enhanced to Rs. 7,776/- by incorporating the 20% unearned increase annually.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, firstly, submitted that this increase was unwarranted because the brochure, which spelt out the relocation scheme, did not speak of unearned increase. Secondly, the petitioners submitted that the plots were to be allotted to the petitioners on a no-profit-no-loss basis and that since no expense was incurred after 2001 as all developmental activities had taken place before then, there was no question of charging anything more than the land rates fixed at Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre. Thirdly, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners' case is an exceptional one where their industries were shut down pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court and were directed to be relocated. The petitioners' industries were shut down on 10.05.1996 and they have not been able to carry on any business since. The allotments of land ought to have taken place expeditiously, but they have not yet been done although over 10 years have elapsed. As a result, the petitioners are without any work or business. In these circumstances, the land rates were to be concessional rates and the respondents could not charge a premium for allotting the land to them.

8. Ms Anusuya Salwan, who appears on behalf of DSIDC (Respondent No. 2), referred to paragraph 5 of the guidelines which has been set out above. She submitted that the price of Rs. 3,000/- per sq. metre indicated therein was only an estimated figure and was subject to change as indicated in paragraph 5. It was also relatable to the location of the flatted factory complexes/industrial areas and other inputs. She referred to the affidavit of Mr B.K. Singh, Senior Manager (Legal), DSIDC. Paragraph 3 of the said counter-affidavit indicates that the plots at Narela are developed plots and Narela Industrial Area is a developed industrial area. It is further stated in the said Page 1566 counter-affidavit that the petitioners were getting developed industrial plots at only Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre, whereas the reserve price set for commercial plots was about Rs. 24,000/- per sq. metre as published in the Hindustan Times dated 15.09.2004. She submits that it is, therefore, clear that the petitioners were being offered plots at rates much lower than the market rates. It is also stated in the affidavit that the rates that were being charged from the petitioners were determined by the Government of NCT of Delhi vide their circular dated 26.04.2004 issued to the DSIDC. She submitted that the rate of Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre was being charged from the petitioners on the basis of the notified rates as approved by the Lt. Governor of Delhi.

9. On the legal issues, Ms Salwan submitted that these are policy matters which relate to pricing of land and the courts have a very limited scope of interference in such matters as was held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheelawanti and Anr. v. D.D.A. and Anr. . The view taken by the Full Bench in Sheelawanti (supra) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of D.D.A. v. Ashok Kumar Behl and Ors. . She referred to various portions of the Supreme Court decision in DDA v. Ashok Kumar Behl (supra) to indicate that there also the question was of estimated prices and the court observed that the degree of interference by the High Courts in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was very limited, particularly because the same involved a contractual relationship and when the contract itself permitted escalation, including the escalation in cost of lands, the petitioners could not make a grievance of it in a petition under Article 226. She again referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sheelawanti (supra) and in particular to paragraphs 6, 11, 24, 25, 26, 30 and 36. She referred to the paragraphs 13 and 14 of the brochure involved in that case which also used the expressions "indicative costs" and "estimated prices". Those estimated prices/indicative costs were based on the lay out costs, construction, etc. With reference to the same decision, she submitted that the date of allotment and not the date of the draw/application would be relevant for fixing of the prices of land and that the expressions "costs" and "prices" were used interchangeably and in the context of the pricing policy adopted by the DDA, costs implied price. To the same effect is the decision of another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Renu Bali (Smt) v. Delhi Development Authority . She also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Awasan Mandal Parijat UCH Ayawarg Sangharsh Samiti v. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. . In particular, she referred to paragraphs 5, 7, 9 and 11 to indicate that in respect of the same land where flats were allotted at different stages, different prices could be charged. However, I may point out straightaway, if Page 1567 one looks closely at this decision, one would find that the justification for charging different prices for flats was essentially because the higher price was charged for later flats as in those cases the development work was yet to be completed at the earlier stages. The sum and substance of Ms Salwan's submissions is that, firstly, the date of allotment would be the date which would be relevant for fixing the price of the land. Secondly, these are matters of pricing policy and the court's jurisdiction is very limited. The court could only interfere in cases where there was blatant arbitrariness and not where a reasonable policy decision had been taken. Thirdly, she submitted that the relationship between the petitioners and the DSIDC was a contractual one and it was entirely governed by paragraph 5 of the guidelines contained in the brochure which has been set out above. Therefore, a writ petition was not maintainable and, if there was any grievance, the petitioners could file suits in respect of the same.

10. In rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 of the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Bawana Relocation Industrial Plot owners (supra). The said paragraphs read as under:

37. In the instant case, cost of Rs. 3,000/- per sq. mtr. As fixed initially was admittedly a provisional cost. It was subject to revision and the petitioners were specifically told about it. No doubt, the plots are to be allotted to the petitioners on 'no profit and no loss' basis. The respondents, therefore, in the process cannot make any profits. They have to charge such rate from the petitioners which represents the actual cost. The petitioners are the persons whose industrial units have been closed down as they were in non-conforming/residential areas. They may be facing economic hardships. They have to rehabilitate themselves by shifting to the proposed Bawana Industrial Area. Even the Supreme Court, while directing closure of the petitioners' industrial units, mandated the respondents to give these petitioners plots in other areas, including the Bawana Industrial Area, on 'no profit no loss' basis. It is for this reason that I heard the parties on this revision of cost at length. Otherwise, in view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, this exercise was not even required. However, it is to be borne in mind that the power of judicial review in such matters is very limited. What is to be kept in mind that the respondents have not taken arbitrary or irrational decision and have taken into consideration relevant factors only, excluding irrelevant considerations.

38. These arguments were heard only to find out as to whether the respondent/DSIDC had shown fairness in its action in revising the cost from Rs. 3,000/- per sq. mtr. to Rs. 4,200/- per sq. mtr. The respondent/DSIDC has given its justification and for this purpose given figures under various components in Annexure A-I which led to increase of costs from Rs. 815.39 crores to Rs. 1,297.06 crores under these heads. No doubt, the petitioners have made an attempt to challenge the revision in the cost under those heads by making various submissions which are noted above and the respondents have also tried to rebut those suggestions and justified the figures stated in Annexure A-I. However, it is not the function of this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Page 1568 Constitution of India, to go into these aspects microscopically and assume itself the role of costing under each head.

39. After hearing the parties and having regard to the submissions made in the written note submitted by them, I am of the opinion that the decision of the respondent/DSIDC cannot be termed as irrational so as to attract the Wednesbury's principle of irrationality. The respondents, after all, have developed the concerned industrial area on no profit and no loss basis. The entire amount which is to be received from the allottees of these plots is to be spent on the project itself. The respondent/DSIDC cannot usurp and/or divert the receipts from the sale of these plots to any other project and/or venture and/or any other head. An assurance was given by Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/DSIDC that the entire amount received on this account would be spent only on the project and for the betterment of the industrial area. The DSIDC is directed to adhere to this commitment and assurance, which even otherwise it is supposed to do. Such a statement on behalf of the DSIDC should be sufficient to ensure that the amount of Rs. 4,200/- per sq. mtr. Demanded now is not illegal as ultimately it is going to be spent for the benefit of the occupants of the Bawana Industrial Area on the project itself.

Referring to the said paragraphs, it was submitted that the court permitted the enhancement of cost of land from Rs. 3,000/- per sq. metre to Rs. 4,200/- per sq. metre because the DSIDC had given a justification for the increase of various components as provided in Annexure-A-I in the said case.

11. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no quarrel with the proposition that where the enhancement is justified, the petitioners would not have any ground for grievance. In the Bawana case, the enhancement was justified by the DSIDC by providing various details of increase in cost of land and other factors. There is no such justification in the present case. According to the petitioners, the only ground on which the enhancement is being carried out is the policy of charging 20% unearned increase annually as indicated in the affidavit referred to above. Apart from this, there is no other justification submitted by the respondents for enhancing the rate of land from Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre between 2001 and 2004. It is also apparent that the calculation of the figure of Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre has also been done on this very basis. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the argument of Ms. Salwan is to be accepted that this is an entirely contractual matter, then the condition of 20% unearned increase should also have been provided within the contract. But, there is no mention of any charge for unearned increase of 20% or any other figure in the brochure or the guidelines. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this was not a part of the contract at all. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents to indicate that this Court ought not to interfere would not be applicable.

12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also referred to the letters of eligibility for allotment issued on 09.08.2002. The second paragraph of the said letters reads as under:

2. I am directed to inform you that based on preliminary scrutiny, your unit has been found to be provisionally eligible for allotment of an Page 1569 alternative industrial plot measuring 100 sq. mtr. Tentative cost of the plot is Rs. 4200/- per sq. mtr. which is subject to revision depending upon the actual cost of development of industrial plot.

With reference to the aforesaid extract, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the tentative cost of plot was fixed at Rs. 4,200/- per sq. metre which was subject to revision depending upon the actual cost of development of the industrial plot. This rate of Rs. 4,200/- per sq. metre was in respect of allotments to be made in Bawana Industrial Area. However, for allotments in Narela, the rate was Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre as indicated in paragraph 7 of the said letter. In the context of this letter, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the rate of Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre could be revised, but that would depend upon the actual cost of development of the industrial plot and on nothing else. He submitted that the hike in the land price from Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre is not on account of the actual cost of development of the industrial plot, but on account of the policy decision of charging 20% unearned increase each year after 2001. He submitted that, first of all, there is no provision for charging of unearned increase under the relocation scheme. Secondly, even if the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent [DSIDC] was a contractual one, the DSIDC could not arbitrarily raise the price in violation of all the conditions and stipulations contained in the scheme. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the shifting of policy was not permissible and, in support of this, reliance was placed on the decision of a learned single of this Court in the case of Rose Educational Scientific and Cultural Society (Regd.) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. . A reference was made to paragraph 11 of the said decision to indicate that a mid-stream shifting of policy was not permissible. The policy that was in vogue at the time the applications were invited was the one which, according to the petitioners, would be applicable to the petitioners even at the time of allotment of the land. In the same light they referred to a decision of another learned single judge of this Court in the case of Kashi Nath Singh (Sq. Ldr.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 (67) DRJ 578 wherein it was indicated that the policy prevalent at the relevant time when the advertisement was issued and the applications were made was the one which was applicable and not the policy which was introduced subsequently.

14. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also made a reference to the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'). A reference was made to Rule 2(1) which defined pre-determined rates as under:

2. Definitions.

In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-

 xxx      xxx      xxx      xxx      xxx
 

(1) "Pre-determined rates" means the rates of premium chargeable from different categories of persons and determined by notification from time to time, by the Central Government, having regard to-
 

Page 1570
  

(a) cost of acquisition,
 

(b) development charges, and
 

(c) concessional charges for use and occupation:
  

(i) for developed residential plots, at the rate of Rs. 3.60 per square metre for the first 167 square metres or part thereof; Rs. 4.80 per square metre for the next 167 square metres or part thereof; Rs. 6 per square metre for the next 167 per square metres or part thereof; Rs. 7.20 per square metre for the next 167 square metres or part thereof; Rs. 8.40 per square metre for the next 167 square or part thereof; and Rs. 9.60 per square metre thereafter;

(ii) for developed industrial plots, at the rate of Rs. 3.60 per square metre for the first 0.81 hectares or part thereof; Rs. 4.80 per square metre for the next 0.81 hectares or part thereof; Rs. 6 per square metre for the next 0.81 hectares or part thereof; Rs. 7.20 per square metre for the next 0.81 hectares or part thereof; Rs. 8.40 per square metre for the next 0.81 hectares or part thereof; and Rs. 9.60 per square metre thereafter.

Provided that the pre-determined rates at which allotment is made to persons belonging to middle income group may be higher than the rates of premium fixed for plots allotted to persons in the low income group;

Provided further that in fixing the pre-determined rates of premium, the Central Government may fix a higher rate of premium for plots situated on main roads, corners of two roads, or at other advantage positions than the rates of premium fixed for plots situated far away from the main roads;

Rule 6(v) was also referred to. The said rule reads as under:

6. Allotment of Nazul land at pre-determined rates:

Subject to the other provisions of these rules the Authority shall allot Nazul land at the predetermined rates in the following cases namely:

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(v) to industrialists or owners and occupiers of warehouses who are required to shift their industries and warehouses from non-conforming areas to conforming areas under the Master Plan, or whose land in acquired or is proposed to be acquired under the Act;

He submitted that the disposal of lands done by the DDA for relocation purposes was to be done as per Rule 6(v) of the said Rules and these were clearly pre-determined rates which, in turn, were concessional rates. In this context, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is, therefore, clear that the respondents are not going out of the way to help the petitioners, because the rules themselves provide for allocating or allotting the lands at concessional rates. He submitted that the factories of the petitioners have been sealed since 1996 and Page 1571 that they have been without any business since then. The delay in allotment of lands has subjected them to extreme financial and economic misery and has virtually reduced them to penury.

15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the key question that arises is: whether the respondent No. 2 can charge 20% unearned increase annually over and above the pre-determined rates of Rs. 5,400/- sq. metre as on 01.01.2001? It is clear that the brochure and the relocation scheme do not speak of any charge under the heading "Unearned Increase". Paragraph 5 of the guidelines referred to above does reveal that the prices indicated are only estimated figures and are subject to increase, based upon the cost of acquisition, cost of construction/development, location of the flatted factory complexes/industrial areas and other inputs. It is clear that if the petitioners had challenged the price enhancement from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre on the ground that it was related to any of these factors, then the writ petitions could not have been entertained in view of the various decisions referred to by Ms Salwan and particularly the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sheelawanti (supra) and the decision of Supreme Court in the case of DDA v. Ashok Kumar Behl (supra). But, as revealed by the respondents, the price hike from Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre was not on account of any of the aforesaid factors, but on account of the policy of charging 20% unearned increase annually. In these circumstances, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent would not come in the way of the petitioners. The writ petitions would be maintainable and the respondents would have to justify as to on what basis the enhancement of the prices from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre has been done. Merely citing a policy of 20% unearned increase annually would not be sufficient because that is not the cost of acquisition, nor is it the cost of construction/development, nor is it related to the location of flatted factories complexes/industrial areas, nor is there any other input. There are no other factors which have to be taken into account for arriving at the land price as indicated under the relocation scheme.

16. Ms Salwan did mention that the ultimate price to be charged would be dependent upon the location of the factories. That, however, has already been taken care of by fixing different land rates for different areas. In the Bawana Industrial Area, plots were allotted at Rs. 4,200/- per sq. metre, whereas in the Narela Industrial Area, which is a more developed area, the land price was fixed at Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre in 2001. Therefore, this will also be of no help to the respondents to explain the increase in the price from Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre in 2001 to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre in 2004.

17. Ms. Salwan had submitted that the land rates of 2004 were the relevant land rates and not of 2001. This submission was made because the allotments Page 1572 were made in 2004. It is an admitted position that the land price of Narela Industrial Area for allotment to the petitioners was fixed at Rs. 5,400/- in 2001. It is nowhere stated in the affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondents that any developmental activity has taken place after 2001 and that any additional costs as indicated in paragraph 5 of the guidelines have been incurred by the respondents after 2001. Therefore, it would be unfair and beyond the scope of relocation scheme to enhance the value of the land when no costs or expenses have been incurred by the respondents.

18. In these circumstances, I find that there is no tangible or reasonable explanation for the increase in the price of land to the figure of Rs. 7,776/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the enhancement of the price of land from Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre was justified or as per the relocation policy.

19. Consequently, the demand for Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. However, this does not mean that the petitioners would only be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre for the plots allotted to them. The price of Rs. 5,400/- was fixed in the year 2001, whereas the allotments were made in 2004 and are to be paid for today. The value of the rupee has declined in these years because of inflation and if the petitioners were to be asked to pay at the rate of Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre in 2004 or today, then the petitioners would stand to gain and the respondents would stand to lose in real terms. This is so because inflation has eroded the value of the Rupee in real terms. Since the allotment of land is to be made on a 'no-profit no-loss basis', neither party can be permitted to gain at the cost of the other. It follows that the respondents would be entitled to enhance the nominal price of Rs. 5,400/- in 2001 to a higher figure in 2007 depending upon the rate of inflation in the intervening period so that the petitioners have to pay Rs. 5,400/- in real terms adjusted to 2007. The wholesale price index (WPI), is the most popular measure for monitoring inflation (see : Economic Survey 2006-2007, Government of India : Chapter 5). The WPI could be used to arrive at a reasonably accurate figure so that the price of Rs. 5,400/- in 2001 is retained in real terms in 2007. It would be open to the respondents to adopt this price index to compute the price of the plots today so that what the petitioners pay today for the plots is equated, in real terms, to the price of Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre in 2001.

20. This exercise shall be conducted by the respondent No. 2 within four weeks and the new adjusted land prices would be indicated to the petitioners. The petitioners shall make the payment of the same within two weeks thereof. Of course, any amounts paid by any of the petitioners earlier shall be adjusted. If the petitioners make the payment of the full amounts indicated by the respondents, then possession of the lands/plots would be handed over within four weeks.

21. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties shall bear their own costs.