Risal Singh & Others vs D.S.I.D.C. & Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 3382 Del

13-16

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) Nos. 7100/2007, 7099/2007, 7101/2007, 7102/2007,

        RISAL SINGH               ..... Petitioner in 7100/2007
        NANAK CHAND                ..... Petitioner in 7099/2007
        NEELAM              ..... Petitioner in 7101/2007
        DHARAM PAL           ..... Petitioner in 7102/2007
                           Through Mr.Rohit K. Modi, advocate.

                    versus


        D.S.I.D.C & ANR                ..... Respondents
                           Throughz Mr.Ruchiq Mishra, advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                     ORDER

% 26.08.2009

These writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The land of the petitioners at Vill.Holambi Kalan, Narela was

acquired for development of Narela Industrial Complex. The petitioners

have received compensation for the said land as per the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. In 1997, respondent-DSIDC invited applications for allotment of

shops at Narela Industrial Park from persons/members of displaced

families whose land had been acquired for development of Narela

Industrial Complex.

4. The petitioners deposited Rs.15,000/- like other applicants for

allotment of specific shops as mentioned in the 1997

Brochure/Scheme. The said Brochure/Scheme had indicated the

W.P.(C) Nos.7099 & 7100-02/2007 Page 1 number of shops, covered area of each shop and the total cost of each

shop. The said Brochure/Scheme further clarified that each applicant

was entitled to apply for only one shop and in case an applicant applies

for more than one shop, his application shall be rejected.

5. The petitioners were not successful and shops were not allotted

to them under the 1997 Brochure/Scheme in the draw of lots held as

more than one eligible person had applied for the same shop. The

respondent-DSIDC however retained Rs.15,000/- deposited by the

petitioners to consider them for allotment under a new scheme as and

when floated.

6. In 2000, the respondent-DSIDC published another

Brochure/Scheme for allotment of specified shops as stated therein.

The 2000 Brochure/Scheme again indicated the number of shops,

covered area of each shop and the total cost of each shop. Each

applicant was required to apply for one shop only and in case of

multiple choice for more than one shop, the application was liable to

be rejected. The petitioners accepted the terms mentioned in the 2000

Brochure/Scheme and made applications for being considered for

allotment and also specified the shop in which they were interested.

7. The petitioners were given preference in allotment even when

there were multiple applications for the same shop as they had initially

applied for allotment of shops under the 1997 Scheme/Brochure and

Rs.15,000/- deposited by them was retained by DSIDC. Thus, in case of

multiple applications for allotment of one shop, allotment was made in

favour of the petitioner concerned. No draw of lots was held. Thus the

W.P.(C) Nos.7099 & 7100-02/2007 Page 2 petitioners were to be given preference over others who had made

applications for the first time under the 2000 Brochure/Scheme.

However as the shops were allotted as per the 2000 Brochure/Scheme,

the petitioners were called upon by allotment letters dated 19th July,

2006 to pay the amount as specified in the 2000 Brochure/Scheme.

The petitioners made representations against the price fixed in the

2000 Brochure/Scheme. The representations were considered and the

prices were revised downwards and fresh demand letters at reduced

prices were issued in 2007. Thus the shops were offered to the

petitioners at a price lower than the price mentioned in the 2000

Brochure/Scheme on the basis of which the petitioners had exercised

their option for allotment of the shop.

8. The petitioners are not satisfied with the price demanded by

DSIDC. They claim that the shops should be allotted at the 1997 prices.

It is not possible to accept the said contention. The 1997

Brochure/Scheme was for specific number of shops stated in the said

Brochure. The shops mentioned in the said Brochure/Scheme were

available. Each applicant was required to specify one shop in which he

was interested and wanted allotment. An applicant could not ask for

allotment of more than one shop. In case more than one eligible

candidate had applied for one shop, selection was through draw of

lots. In the draw of lots, the petitioners were not successful and the

shops were allotted to the other eligible applicants. The shops offered

for allotment under the 1997 Scheme/Brochure were located at Facility

Centre No.IV.

W.P.(C) Nos.7099 & 7100-02/2007 Page 3

9. 2000 Brochure/Scheme is a new scheme with shops mentioned

therein. Shops were in Facility Centre Nos. II, IV and VII. Each applicant

was required to specify the particular shop he was interested in. No

applicant could specify more than one shop. The 2000

Brochure/Scheme also stated that in case number of applicants was

more than one, allotment would be made by draw of lots. The covered

area of the shop and the price payable for each shop was specifically

stipulated in the 2000 Brochure/Scheme. The petitioners exercised

their option and made their choice for allotment of one shop by

submitting an application under the 2000 Brochure/Scheme. While

submitting the said application, the petitioners were aware of the price

demanded and payable by them in case of allotment. As the

petitioners had deposited Rs.15,000/- under the 1997

scheme/Brochure and the amount had remained with DSIDC, they

were given preference in allotment even if there was more than one

applicant for the said shop. The petitioners were given preferential

treatment and allotments were made to them ignoring new/fresh

applications made under the 2000 Brochure/Scheme.

10. The petitioners cannot question the price fixed under the 2000

Brochure/Scheme. They were aware of the price of the shop and had

made a considered decision by exercising their choice. The 1997

Brochure/Scheme was for specific shops and close ended. The 2000

W.P.(C) Nos.7099 & 7100-02/2007 Page 4 Brochure/Scheme was a new Scheme, independent and separate.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to

letter dated 27th November, 2002 written by respondent-DSIDC stating

as under:-

" Subject: Allotment of shops in FC.II, IV and VII at Narela Indl Park.

Sir,

This is in continuation to our letter of even No.dt.24.6.2002 on the subject cited above. In this connection I am directed to inform you that draw of lots for allotment of shops at Narela Indl Park to the villagers whose land has been acquired for development of Indl. Park and have applied for allotment of shop during the year 1997 and 2000 is scheduled to take place on 10.12.2002 at 2.00 PM at DSIDC Administrative Block Bldg, Narela.

Further draw will be conducted first for the applicants who had applied for allotment of shop in 1997 and allotment will be made to them as per the terms and conditions and rates laid down in the brochure issued in the year 1997. After the draw amongst aforesaid applicants, the applications of remaining applicants who had applied during 2000 will be put in draw of lots and allotment will be made to them as per the terms and conditions and rates laid down in the brochure issued in the year 2000.

The draw will be conducted irrespective of the offer received for size/location/center. You are also requested to bring this letter to attend the draw of lots. On the day/time as mentioned above."

12. It is accordingly submitted that the respondent-DSIDC had

agreed and accepted that the rates applicable and mentioned in the

1997 Brochure/Scheme will be applied to the petitioners who had

W.P.(C) Nos.7099 & 7100-02/2007 Page 5 initially made applications made for allotment under the 1997

Brochure/Scheme.

13. The respondents-DSIDC in the counter affidavit have clarified the

reason and cause why letter dated 27th November, 2002 was written

and what had caused the confusion. It is pointed out that under the

2000 Brochure/Scheme, 59 shops in Facility Centre no. III, 51 shops in

Facility Centre no.VII and 6 shops in Facility Centre No.IV were

available for allotment. The 6 shops in the Facility Centre No.IV

mentioned in the 2000 Brochure/Scheme were constructed and were

also available in the 1997 Brochure/Scheme but for want of applicants

or otherwise could not be allotted. In these circumstances, it was

decided that the applicants who had initially applied for allotment

under the 1997 Brochure/Scheme but were not allotted shops, the

rates as per 1997 Brochure/Scheme would apply to these 6 shops in

facility centre No. IV. However, the applicants who had applied for the

first time under 2000 Brochure/Scheme would be liable to pay the

rates as applicable in the year 2000 in respect of 6 shops in facility

centre No.IV. The aforesaid paragraph in the letter dated 27th

November, 2002 was written with reference to 6 shops in Facility

Centre No. IV. In view of the said explanation given by DSIDC, I do not

think that benefit can be given to the petitioners on the basis of the

said letter. The said letter could have been better worded and proper

explanation should have been given. But this by itself in view of the

terms and conditions in 2000 Brochure/Scheme will not entitle the

W.P.(C) Nos.7099 & 7100-02/2007 Page 6 petitioners to allotment on the basis of the rates as per 1997

Brochure/Scheme. The contention of the petitioners that they are

entitled to shops at the rates under the 1997 Brochure/Scheme and

the rates mentioned in the 2000 Brochure/Scheme are not applicable

to them is not correct

14. The relevant portion of the interim order dated 26th September,

2007, reads as under:-

"I have considered the brochures. Facially there is no provision except the one enabling respondents to enhance the cost increase in the event of their having to pay higher compensation upon a notification issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Admittedly, all the applicants were offered the shops since they were owners of land that were acquired for development of the complex. In these circumstances the respondents are hereby directed not to take steps to cancel the allotment, (if not already done), of the petitioners during pendency of the proceedings, provided the petitioners deposit the equivalent to 60% of the sum demanded within four weeks from today with the respondents. This is subject to the outcome of the proceedings. In the event of the petitioners succeeding and in any event returning to the respondents the appropriate interest at 10% may also be directed to pay to them."

15. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners have deposited 60% of

the demanded amount and 40% of the balance amount remains to be

paid. The petitioners are given option to pay the balance amount of

40% along with interest @ 10% p.a. in terms of the Order dated 26th

September, 2007. Interest will be paid on the balance amount w.e.f.

W.P.(C) Nos.7099 & 7100-02/2007 Page 7 26th September, 2007 till payment is made. 40% of the balance

amount will be paid within six weeks from today.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

AUGUST 26, 2009.

      P




W.P.(C) Nos.7099 & 7100-02/2007                                  Page 8