Delhi High Court
M/S Mohindera Goods Carriers & Anr vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 6 August, 2008
Author: Manmohan Sarin
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI
% Date of decision:August 06, 2008
+1. WP(C) 2264/1987
M/s Mohindera Goods Carriers & anr ...Petitioner
through
Mr.Arya Girdhir, Advocate with
Mr.Harmohinder Singh,
Petitioner no.2 in person.
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi ...Respondent
through
Ms.Amita Gupta Advocate with
Mr.Azimul Haque, Deputy
Commissioner, Civil Lines Zone,
MCD.
+2. WP(C) 2265/1987
Shri Gurbachan Pal Singh & anr ...Petitioners
through
Mr.Arya Girdhir, Advocate with
Mr.Gurbachan Pal Singh,
Petitioner no.1 in person.
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi ...Respondent
through
Ms.Amita Gupta Advocate with
Mr.Azimul Haque, Deputy
Commissioner, Civil Lines Zone,
MCD.
Coram :
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Manmohan Sarin
Hon'ble Ms.Justice Veena Birbal
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
WP(C)No. 2264/1987 Page 1 of 7
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? Yes
Manmohan Sarin, J.(Oral)
1. By this common judgment, we are deciding two writ
petitions, bearing WP(C)No.2264/1987 and WP(C)No.2265/1987.
In the first petition, petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for
quashing the demand at Rs.500/- per sq. meter and a
mandamus to the respondent-Corporation for allotment of
second plot covered by file no.179/440 for which payment of
Rs.1,18,800/- as demanded by the respondent-Corporation had
earlier been made. Petitioner also seeks a restraint on the
respondent-Corporation from demanding or charging amounts
mentioned in Annexure `H' annexed with the petition by which
respondent has demanded a sum of Rs.1,02,322/- as balance
payment from the petitioner.
2. Mr.Arya Girdhari, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner firm i.e M/s. Mohindera Goods Carriers
had the following partners, when scheme for alternate allotment
of plots at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar was introduced:-
1. Mr.Harmohinder Singh
2. S.Jagjit Singh
3. S.Gurbachan Pal Singh
4. S.Inderjit Singh (since deceased)
5. S.Joginder Singh - do -
WP(C)No. 2264/1987 Page 2 of 7
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the judgment
of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.833/1999 and other
connected writ petitions titled Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar
Sufferer Plot Holders Association and others Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi dated 23rd October, 2002 and the order of
the Division Bench in WP(C) 1648/1989 dated 21st March, 2001,
does not press the claim as regards allotment at tentative rates
initially indicated at the time of introduction of the scheme and is
willing for payment of the rates as currently applicable and
demanded by the MCD (January, 1987). Petitioner also accepts
to abide by the Policy, relevant extract of which is as under:-
"Applicants, qualified by criteria (a) and (b) above
will all be given one plot each plot in lieu of their
premises/area of usage measuring upto 500 sq.
metres. For every 500 sq.metres additional area or
fraction thereof under their usage, applicants will be
entitled to an additional plot of applicable size. For the
next one commercial price (which will be three times
the reserve price) and for the remaining additional
plots market price (which will be five times the reserve
price)."
4. First writ petition i.e WP(C) No.2264/1987 was filed in the
name of M/s Mohindera Goods Carriers though its partner
Mr.Harmohinder Singh while the second writ petition i.e WP(C)
2265/1987 was filed by Mr.Gurbachan Pal Singh who had
retired from M/s Mohindera Goods Carriers in 1986, however, he
WP(C)No. 2264/1987 Page 3 of 7
was a partner at the relevant time when the Scheme was
introduced.
Petitioner-firm has already been allotted a plot of 440
sq.mtrs for which payment @ Rs.425/- + Rs.75/- electrification
charges i.e Rs.500/- per sq. mtr. has been made. Petitioners
do not press their claim for any refund.
5. Mr.Arya Girdhari, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in
the above two writ petitions and on instructions from
Mr.Harmohinder Singh and Mr.Gurbachan Pal Singh, who are
present in court, initially urged that they should be allotted a plot
each of 440 sq.mtrs. We find that petitioner's averments with
regard to area in their possession and utilization were bereft of
relevant details and other necessary particulars. In fact during
the course of proceedings, petitioners filed additional affidavit
which only marginally improves the position as far as complete
information is concerned.
6. In this situation rather than going by petitioners' incomplete
information and particulars, we have taken into consideration the
record of the MCD itself showing the survey done by it with
regard to area in petitioners' occupation and use. The full area
as claimed by petitioners has not been accepted. Confronted
with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners and the
petitioners who are present in person, accept the position that
WP(C)No. 2264/1987 Page 4 of 7
the survey conducted by the respondent-MCD for their premises
be taken into consideration for determining their entitlement for
alternate plot. As per the survey report, area works out to 702
sq.mtrs. The only additional factor which has been pointed out
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the above
computation does not include their premises at Naya Bans having
an area of 48 sq. mtrs. From record of MCD, this assertion
appears to be correct. The total area thus works out to 750 sq.
mtrs. Mr.Azimul Haque, Deputy Commissioner, Civil Lines Zone,
MCD who is present in court also accepts this position.
7. Mr.Arya Girdhari, appearing on behalf of the petitioners as
also Mr.Harmohinder Singh and Mr.Gurbachan Pal Singh state
that they accept the position of their area for purposes of
allotment of second plot being taken as 750 sq. mtrs. On the
above basis and applying the policy, learned counsel for
respondent states that the entitlement and eligibility of the
petitioner would be a plot of 220 sq. mtrs. in all. Mr. Gurbachan
Pal Singh, petitioner in WP(C) 2265/1987 states that he has no
objection to the plot being allotted in the name of M/s Mohindera
Goods Carriers. Mr.Singh further submits that he is not pressing
his claim in WP(C) 2265/1987.
8. We have also considered the aspect of the rate to be
charged from the petitioners. Petitioners in this case during the
WP(C)No. 2264/1987 Page 5 of 7
period from October, 1976 to January, 1986 had deposited
Rs.2,37,600/- in respect of the two plots applied for. The
reserved price at the relevant time was Rs.425/- + Rs.75/-
electrification charges i.e Rs.500/- per sq.mtr and in terms of
the policy for the allotment of second plot, three times reserved
price could be charged i.e Rs.425/- x 3 = Rs.1275/- + Rs.75/-
electrification charges = Rs.1350/- per sq.mtr.
9. We also notice that vide orders dated 4th August, 1987, one
plot of 440 sq.mtrs was reserved in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent attempted to urge that
petitioner should be subjected to payment at the current rates.
We do not find any justification for the same especially
considering that substantial part of the payment for the plot in
question stood deposited with the MCD and secondly MCD did
not raise any demand in respect thereof during this period or
make the allotment. Petitioner is willing to make payment @
Rs.1275/-+ Rs.75/- = Rs.1350/- per sq.mtr together with
interest @ 12% p.a on the balance amount which has remained
unpaid from January, 1986. Availability of plot of 220 sq.mtrs
has been confirmed by Mr.Haque. The respondent MCD would
within a month allot a plot of 220 Sq. mtr. in the name of
petitioner M/s Mohindera Goods Carriers on the petitioner
WP(C)No. 2264/1987 Page 6 of 7
making the balance payment as aforesaid. The petitioner would
also complete the requisite formalities therefor.
10. Plot of 440 sq.mtrs which was reserved vide orders dated
4th August, 1987 stands released and MCD would be free to make
its allotment as it deems appropriate.
11. WP(C) 2264/1987 stands disposed of in the above terms
and WP(C) 2265/1987 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Manmohan Sarin, J.
Veena Birbal, J.
August 06, 2008
ssb
