Delhi High Court
Narender Kumar & Ors vs D.S.I.I.D.C. Ltd. & Anr. on 24 January, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA NO. 87 of 2011
NARENDER KUMAR & ORS. ....Appellants
Through Mr. L.R. Khatana, Mr. R.K. Verma,
Mr. Sudhir Naagar and
Anshul Dabas, Advocates.
VERSUS
D.S.I.I.D.C. LTD. & ANR. ....Respondents.
Through Ms. Anusuya Salwan and
Mr. Kunal, Advs. for respondent 1.
Ms. Sujata Kashyap for respondent 2.
L.P.A. NO. 88 OF 2011
BHARDWAJ PACKAGING INDIA & ORS. ....Appellants
Through Mr. L.R. Khatana, Mr. R.K. Verma,
Mr. Sudhir Naagar and
Anshul Dabas, Advocates.
VERSUS
D.S.I.D.C. LTD. & ANR. ....Respondents.
Through Ms. Anusuya Salwan and
Mr. Kunal, Advs. for respondent 1.
Ms. Sujata Kashyap for respondent 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
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
24.1.2011
LPA 87/2011 Page 1 of 4
The impugned order dated 14TH December, 2010 passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants
and several others has already been upheld in LPA No. 920/2010,
Bhawana-II (Bhorgarh) Industrial Relocation Plot Owner's Asscn. Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., decided on 24th December, 2010. The
said order reads as under:-
"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
LPA 87/2011 Page 2 of 4
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 06th 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."
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has, however, submitted that
the aforesaid order deals only with the cross subsidy towards EWS
component which has been added to the cost and does not deal with
some other aspects raised in the present appeal. It is submitted that
there is a proposed legislation which is pending notification regarding
LPA 87/2011 Page 3 of 4
payment of corpus fund. It is submitted that the proposed enactment
has not been notified and Rules have not been formulated and,
therefore, future maintenance costs @ Rs.1000/- per sq.mtr as
demanded is illegal. We do not find any merit in the said contention.
The said amount has been demanded towards cost of maintenance.
Demand has been made as per policy decision and not under any
specific enactment. In paragraph 23 of the judgment dated 14th
December, 2010 it is recorded that 2.5% of the land value towards
annual maintenance is not been charged but if the maintenance fund is
found to be inadequate in future, a further lump sum amount may be
charged.
3. The question of discrimination has been dealt with by the learned
Single Judge in paragraphs 17 to 21 of the impugned judgment. We do
not find any legal error or mistake in the said reasoning of the learned
single Judge.
4. The present appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no orders
as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JANUARY 24, 2011
KKB
