Bawana-Ii (Bhorgarh) Industrial ... vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5924 Del

                                                                                         #7
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       LPA 920/2010

BAWANA-II (BHORGARH)
INDUSTRIAL RELOCATION
PLOT OWNER'S ASSOCIATION                         ..... Appellant
                 Through:                        Mr. Prasoon Kumar with
                                                 Mr. Ravi Choudhary, Advocates
                        versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Sandeep Khatri, Advocate
                            for Ms. Reeta Kaul, Advocate for
                            R-1.
                            Ms. Anusuya Salwan with
                            Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocates
                            for R-2/DSIIDC.


%                                     Date of Decision : 24th December, 2010


CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.


                                 JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

CM No. 23222/2010 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, application stands disposed of.

LPA 920/2010 & CM 23221/2010

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment and order dated 14th December, 2010 passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.(C) 7768/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge

has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition. It is pertinent to mention that

by the said writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the demand/cost

determined by the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure

Development Corporation Ltd. (for short "DSIIDC").

2. Mr. Prasoon Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the balance 50% of the cost of industrial plot determined by the

DSIIDC was highly arbitrary, exorbitant and contrary to the cost

determined by the respondents in the minutes of meeting held on 6th

August, 2009. He further submitted that the cross-subsidy towards

categories such as Economically Weaker Section (EWS) had been

illegally added in the cost demanded by DSIIDC. Mr. Prasoon Kumar

placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in P.N. Verma & Ors.

Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1985 Delhi 417.

3. Having heard the parties and having perused the paper book, we

find that the cost of ` 15,566/- per sq. mtr. determined by DSIIDC is far

lower in comparison to the market rate of ` 36,469/- per sq. mtr. as well

as to the circle rate of ` 27,400/- per sq. mtr. determined by the

Government of NCT of Delhi. We further find that the respondent-

DSIIDC had determined the aforesaid cost in pursuance to a circular

dated 17th August, 2010 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi.

Consequently, the reliance on minutes of meeting dated 06 th August,

2009 is misconceived.

4. In our opinion, the judgment in P.N. Verma (supra) is not

applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case a

condition had been stipulated in the letter of allotment that the cost

mentioned therein was tentative and subject to change depending on

actual cost of development of the industrial plot and directions issued

by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Further, in the present case the

policy of price fixation or cost factor has not been amended, unlike

what was done in P.N. Verma (supra).

5. In fact, on a perusal of the paper book we find that the

component of cross-subsidy towards EWS has been added for

providing facilities to workmen who are going to be employed by

industrialists, like the appellant, under the relocation scheme.

Consequently, in our view, the price determined by the DSIIDC is both

fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the present appeal and application

are dismissed but with no order as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 24, 2010 rn