Delhi High Court
Rajindra Iron Mart & Another vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 21 August, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6398/2008
Date of decision: 21st August, 2009
RAJINDRA IRON MART & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate.
versus
D.D.A & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Amit Mehra,
Advocates for respondent no. 1/DDA.
Mr. Darpan Wadhwa and Ms. Divya
Jha, Advocates for respondent no. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
ORDER
% 21.08.2009
1. The petitioner,M/s Rajindra Iron Mart, a partnership firm, had applied
for allotment of an alternative industrial plot at Okhla under a scheme on 5th
February, 1970. The scheme was for allotment of land for godowns and
warehousing facilities to the members of Delhi Steel Dealers' Association.
In the draw of lots held on 14.09.1970, Plot no. A-179, Okhla Industrial Area,
W.P. (C) 6398/2008 Page 1
Phase-I, Delhi was allotted to the petitioner and a demand letter was issued.
The petitioner did not make payment and asked for reduction of price. The
allotment was cancelled due to non-payment, but subsequently restored.
2. The allotment was again cancelled in 1993 and a letter dated
10.12.1993 was written to the petitioner, recording as under: -
"With reference to your application No. 2662 for
allotment of a alternative plot under the scheme of
shifting that as per verification of Dy. Director of
Industries (Lands), no warehousing activity found at
31/3-D, Gali No. 4, Anand Parbat, therefore, the
allotment has been cancelled by Commissioner (LD),
DDA.
The amount deposited by you in respect of above
mentioned plot shall be refunded to you in due course.
No further reference shall be entertained in this behalf."
(emphasis supplied)
3. The petitioner did not challenge or question the said cancellation order
in any court.
4. Nearly 2½ years after letter dated 10.12.1993 was issued cancelling
the allotment, a representation was made with some documents with request
that a proper enquiry be conducted as to whether the petitioner firm was
carrying out warehousing activities. On the basis of this representation that
the DDA wrote to the Commissioner of Industries asking for information and
comments. The comments were furnished by the Commissioner of
Industries vide letter dated 10.12.1996.
W.P. (C) 6398/2008 Page 2
5. It appears that the file was again taken up for consideration sometime
in the end of 1999 and a note was made/prepared by the Director (Lands) on
4.4.2000 for restoration of allotment. The subsequent note thereafter reads
as under: -
"May kindly see notes from P 45/N onwards. The only
requirement for which the allotment was held up so far was
the proof of business in the original location which has now
been submitted by the firm. This issue was discussed with
V.C. sometime back when Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta,
ex-Min., Transport, GNCTD had called on him. As it is
only one case of its kind, the consensus was that we may
take an administrative view in DDA rather than sending it to
LAAC again. The case has been processed by Dir (L)
accordingly we may agree to the proposal."
6. The file was placed before the Lt. Governor, who passed the following
order on 11.05.2000:-
"I have gone through the case.
The LAAC had recommended allotment of alternative
plots subject to verification by Industries Department of
Delhi Government of the warehousing activity at the old site.
The Industries Department has submitted that there was no
warehousing activity at this site. Based on their report, the
allotment was cancelled.
In the documents submitted by the party, there is no
strong evidence to show that "warehousing activity" was
carried out at premises no. 31/3D, Gali No. 4, Anand Parbat.
This is also borne out in the report of the Industries
Department of Government of Delhi.
Considering these facts, I do not see why the order of
CLD, DDA at page 18-N should be changed in any manner."
(Emphasis supplied)
W.P. (C) 6398/2008 Page 3
7. The present writ petition was filed on 1st September, 2008. The
averments to explain delay and laches in approaching this Court are in
paragraph 25 of the writ petition, which read as under: -
"25. It is submitted that the aforesaid order was never
communicated to the Petitioner and was only kept in the files
of the DDA. In fact as stated above, the partner of the
Petitioner Firm Shri Mahesh Chand Khandelwal visited the
office of the DDA atleast once a week in the past 8 years,
even then, there was never even a whisper of the aforesaid
order of the Lt. Governor of Delhi. It is only upon receiving
the photocopy of the file from the Respondent/DDA and the
perusal thereof, it came to light that the matter was placed
before the Lt. Governor of Delhi without any reason who
refused to restore the allotment already made in favour of
the petitioner. The aforesaid is clearly illegal and arbitrary.
Moreover, from the perusal of the documents, it is clear that
the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the guidelines
framed for allotment of alternative plot of land in lieu of its
earlier plot in the non-conforming area."
8. It is admitted by the petitioner during the course of the arguments that
no written letter or communication was addressed by the petitioner after
2000. It is difficult to believe and accept the contention of the petitioner that
repeated visits at least once a week were made to the office of the DDA for a
period of 8 years, but they were not aware of the order passed by the Lt.
Governor.
9. Even otherwise the Lt. Governor in his order has specifically referred
to the fact that verification was made in 1993 and the petitioner was not
carrying on warehousing activity on the old site i.e. Anand Parbat.
Accordingly, the allotment was cancelled. This was also stated in the letter
W.P. (C) 6398/2008 Page 4
dated 10.12.1993 written by DDA to the petitioner cancelling their allotment.
In case the facts stated in the letter dated 10.12.1993 were incorrect, the
petitioner would have immediately responded and controverted the said
facts. On the other hand, the documents placed on record show that the
petitioner made a written representation with documents only on 22nd July,
1996 i.e. 2½ years after the cancellation order was issued and
communicated to the petitioner. During the course of the hearing of the
present matter, the petitioner has produced for perusal before the Court
another letter dated 28th April, 1994 written to DDA by the petitioner. Letter
dated 28th April, 1994 states that the withdrawal of allotment was bad
because the report submitted by the Director of industries was incorrect and
a fresh report should be called for. No documents were furnished along with
the said letter.
10. Further, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioners has stated that in 1991-92 business activity in the property
located at Anand Parbat was stopped. It is, however, stated that this was
not a voluntary closure as business activity was not permitted in the said
area. These facts are not stated in the writ petition. In any case, no
verification in 1996 or thereafter was possible after business activity was
stopped.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ
petition as the allotment itself was rightly cancelled vide letter dated
W.P. (C) 6398/2008 Page 5
10.12.1993. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the grounds
of delay and laches.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that the
petitioner had made some payment towards cost of the plot which is still
retained by the DDA. No directions are being passed in this regard as the
petitioner states that he is not pressing for refund.
The writ petition is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 21, 2009
vn
W.P. (C) 6398/2008 Page 6
