Delhi High Court
National Musketry Stores vs D.S.I.D.C. & Anr on 25 March, 2009
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
5.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 25.03.2009
+ W.P. (C) 22850/2005
NATIONAL MUSKETRY STORES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate.
versus
D.S.I.D.C. & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for DSIDC
Mr. Vijay Kinger for Ms. Monika Garg for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
% Issue Rule.
2. Ms. Renuka Arora and Mr. Vijay Kinger, learned counsel waive notice of
Rule. With consent of counsel for the parties, matter was heard finally, for
disposal.
3. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to hand over
possession of a plot allotted to M/s National Musketry Stores and also for
executing the requisite documents.
4. Briefly, the facts are that the National Musketry Stores, a partnership
firm had applied on 27.12.1996 for allotment of an industrial plot and
deposited Rs.1,20,000/- with the Delhi State Industrial Development
Corporation (hereafter referred to as DSIDC). The firm was constituted by a
partnership deed dated 1.7.1992. It comprises of Shri Nihal Chand Kansil,
S/o Shri Ram Chander, Smt. Prem Lata Kansil, w/o Shri L.D. Kansil and Shri
Anuj Kansil, S/o Shri L.D. Kansil. It is claimed that a fresh partnership deed
was executed on 1.4.1999, in which an additional partner Smt. Pooja Kansil,
w/o Shri Alok Kansil, was included as a partner. Apparently, Shri Nihal Chand
Kansal died on 22.6.2000 necessitating re-constitution of the firm. This
happened on 6.7.2000. The firm now comprises of Smt. Prem Lata Kansil,
Shri Anuj Kansil and Smt. Pooja Kansil. The petitioners approached the
respondents repeatedly for grant of possession of the plot allotted to the firm
No.97, Pocket-I, Sector-5, Bawana. However, DSIDC consistently maintained
that un-earned increase of 50% of the value of the plot had to be paid as a
pre condition for handing over possession and execution of necessary
documents. Apparently, DSIDC did not issue a formal demand in that regard.
In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks the reliefs claimed in the
present proceedings.
5. The DSIDC‟s position spelt out in its return initially was that
relinquishment deed or documents of all heirs of Late Nihal Chand Kansal
was necessary. During the pendency of these proceedings, the writ
petitioners filed such disclaimer deeds including four affidavits, one of dated
2.1.2006, two of dated 6.1.2006 and one dated 7.1.2006. The Memorandum
of family settlement dated 16.4.1990 has also been placed on record.
6. DSIDC‟s position in these proceedings now is that the land
management guidelines issued on 27.9.1999 define under what
circumstances, one or more partner from a existing firm can be deleted or
added. The said guidelines are in the following terms: -
"1. Substitution/addition and deletion of names among the
family members in Lease Deeds of Industrial Plots.
The Existing guidelines for Management of Industrial land
managed by the Government of Delhi shall continue to be
followed in respect of industrial plots allotted under the
„Relocation Scheme‟ where changes involved are from
among the family members.
2. Deletion of one or more partner (s) from partnership
firm.
Deletion of one or more partner (s) shall be allowed on
payment of 50% of the unearned increase in the market
value of the plot calculated on the basis of proportionate
share in profits of the outgoing partner (s). However, the
aforesaid unearned increase shall not be chargeable if the
outgoing partner transfers his/her share in favour of an
existing partner (s) who is from among his her family
member.
3. Substitution/addition deletion of Directors in a Pvt. Ltd.
Co. or a Public Ltd.
Conversions of proprietorship concern or partnership firm
into Pvt. Ltd. Co. or a Public Ltd. Co. may not be permitted.
However, substitution/addition or deletion in the names of
directors may be allowed only from among the family
members."
7. It is contended that the term „Family‟ in relation to a Lessee would
mean the concerned individual, his spouse, father major son, unmarried
daughter or sister and unmarried children.
8. The above discussion would show that initially DSIDC‟s objection to
handing over the possession of the property for which the consideration to
the extent of 90% as demanded has concededly been paid, was that
relinquishment or disclaimer of heirs had not been shown. When that
objection was met with during these proceedings, the DSIDC changed its
stand and contended that new partners in the re-constituted firm do not fall
within the meaning of the term "Family" Member.
9. A reading of the guidelines nowhere indicates the restrictive
interpretation placed upon it by the DSIDC in its counter affidavit. What
cannot be ignored in this case is that the substituted or newly added persons
are all concededly family members; they are daughter-in-laws. DSIDC does
not contest this position at all. If that being the case, the fact that it chooses
to restrictively interpret the term „Family‟ in the opinion of this Court cannot
obscure the circumstance that the partnership firm is comprised of family
members. The so called newly added persons i.e. Smt. Pooja Kansil is the
wife of Shri Alok Kansil and Smt. Prem Lata Kansil is wife of Shri L.D. Kansal.
10. The object of introducing the concept of a „Family‟ in the opinion
of the Court was to ensure that there was no transfer of the firm or interests
in the firm to outsiders. The object of allotment was to re-settle those who
had been functioning in non-conforming areas or zone within the city of
Delhi. If the objective of ensuring that in the event of sale or alienation to
outsiders being permitted subject to payment of unearned increase of 50%
are to be kept in mind, the narrow interpretation sought to be placed on the
term family is unsupportable in law; it is arbitrary.
11. It is, therefore, held that the respondent - DSIDC acted without
application of mind in rejecting the petitioner‟s request for handing over
possession of the plot and execution of the necessary documents. A
direction is accordingly issued to the respondents to take immediate steps
and ensure that possession of the plot is handed over within eight weeks
from today. The respondent DSIDC shall also indicate the formalities to be
completed by the petitioners, to comply with the present directions.
12. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
MARCH 25, 2009
/vd/
