M/S Ahuja Masala Company (P) Ltd. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 7185 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of decision: 14th December, 2012

+                                 LPA No.789/2012

      M/S AHUJA MASALA COMPANY (P) LTD.    ..... Appellant
                   Through: Mr. H.M. Singh & Ms. Shabana,
                            Advs.

                                     Versus

    GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani & Ms. Bandana Shukla, Advs. for R-1&2.

Ms. Anusuya Salwan & Ms. Renuka Arora, Advs. for R-3.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. The appeal impugns the judgment dated 19.10.2012 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10625/2009 filed by the appellant (seeking a direction to the respondents to allot a plot of land ad-measuring 200 sq. mtrs. to the appellant), to the extent it directs allotment to the appellant of a plot ad-measuring 150 sq. mtrs. only. The appellant contends that it is entitled to a plot of 200 sq. mtrs. size as sought in the writ petition.

2. The counsels for the respondents appear on advance notice and we have heard the appeal finally.

3. The respondent No.1 Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) had in or about the year 1995-96 floated a Scheme for relocation of the small scale industries, operating in the Walled City of Delhi and in non- conforming areas, in conforming areas. Applications were invited therefor. The appellant applied for a plot admeasuring 200 sq. mtrs. Though the Screening Committee constituted to sift the applications, found the appellant eligible for a plot ad-measuring 200 sq. mtrs., but the Appeal Committee, finding the non conforming area in use by appellant being of 600 sq. ft. only, found the appellant eligible for a plot admeasuring 100 sq. mtrs. only. The appellant however contended that the non conforming area in his occupation was 2222 sq. ft. and it was thus entitled to a plot admeasuring 200 sq. mtrs. The appellant further represented that since persons who had applied for 200 sq. mtrs. have been allotted plots of 150 sq. mtrs., it should at least be allotted a plot admeasuring 150 sq. mtrs., if not 200 sq. mtrs. Though on such representation the Committee recommended enhancement of the area of the plot allotted to the appellant from 100 sq. mtrs. to 150 sq. mtrs., but the said claim for enhancement was rejected. This resulted in the writ petition from which this appeal arises.

4. The learned Single Judge, as aforesaid has directed allotment of a plot admeasuring 150 sq. mtrs. to the appellant. The appellant claims another 50 sq. mtrs.

5. However what we find is that the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to allot a plot admeasuring 150 sq. mtrs. to the appellant

for the reason of the appellant itself in its letter dated 09.10.2001 having scaled down its request for allotment of a plot admeasuring 200 sq. mtrs. to one which had an area of 150 sq. mtrs. Though the appellant has not filed the said letter but Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC) has produced the original file containing the said letter. The appellant in the said letter had clearly sought allotment of plot admeasuring 150 sq. mtrs. only. We fail to see as to how the appellant can now enhance its claim.

6. The counsel for the appellant has contended that in the application form filled up under the Scheme, the claim was for 200 sq. mtrs. and thus the subsequent letter aforesaid reducing the claim to a plot for 150 sq. mtrs. ought not to effect the entitlement of the appellant.

7. We are unable to agree. While the claim of the appellant was under process, the appellant restricted its claim to a plot for 150 sq. mtrs. We may in this regard notice that there is a controversy as to the contents of the application form filled up by the appellant for allotment of a plot of land, with the respondents contending that the appellant had described the non conforming area in its occupation as 600 sq. ft. only and had subsequently, as an afterthought, in collusion with some staff of the respondents made interpolations therein to show the non conforming area to be of 2222 sq. ft. and the appellant contending that there is no interpolation and in the application form as submitted the non conforming area was shown as 2222 sq. ft. only. The said application form was sent

by the learned Single Judge for expert opinion whose report is also of interpolation, i.e. in favour of the respondents and against the appellant.

8. In these circumstances, when on account of such interpolation discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself could have been declined to the appellant, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to in accordance with the request of the appellant itself, allot a plot admeasuring 150 sq. mtrs. only to the appellant.

9. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 14, 2012 'gsr'