Naresh Kumar Gupta vs Dsidc Ltd.
2012 Latest Caselaw 204 Del

$~R-35 to R-40
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision: January 11, 2012

+                              RFA(OS) No.1/2001

       NARESH KUMAR GUPTA                  ..... Appellant
           Through: Mr.A.K.Singla, Senior Advocate with
                    Mr.J.K.Sharma, Advocate.

                                        versus

       DSIDC LTD.                                     ....Respondent
           Through:            None.

                               RFA(OS) No.2/2001

       SUBHASH CHAND                       ..... Appellant
           Through: Mr.A.K.Singla, Senior Advocate with
                    Mr.J.K.Sharma, Advocate.

                                        versus

       DSIDC LTD.                                     ....Respondent
           Through:            None.

                               RFA(OS) No.3/2001

       SANT KUMAR                                     ..... Appellant
           Through:            Mr.A.K.Singla, Senior Advocate with
                               Mr.J.K.Sharma, Advocate.

                                        versus

       DSIDC LTD.                                     ....Respondent
           Through:            None.

                               RFA(OS) No.4/2001

       SURESH KUMAR                        ..... Appellant
           Through: Mr.A.K.Singla, Senior Advocate with
                    Mr.J.K.Sharma, Advocate.


RFA (OS) Nos.1/01, 2/01, 3/01, 4/01, 5/01 & 16/01          Page 1 of 6
                                         versus

       DSIDC LTD.                                      ....Respondent
           Through:            None.

                               RFA(OS) No.5/2001

       PRADEEP KUMAR                       ..... Appellant
           Through: Mr.A.K.Singla, Senior Advocate with
                    Mr.J.K.Sharma, Advocate.

                                        versus

       DSIDC LTD.                                      ....Respondent
           Through:            None.

                               RFA(OS) No.16/2001

       RAMESH KUMAR                        ..... Appellant
           Through: Mr.A.K.Singla, Senior Advocate with
                    Mr.J.K.Sharma, Advocate.

                                        versus

       DSIDC LTD.                                      ....Respondent
           Through:            None.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. 19 suits have been dismissed by a common order dated September 20, 2000. The preliminary issue framed : "Whether there is any agreement between the parties which can be specifically performed as has been claimed in the suit?" has been decided against the plaintiffs; and six of them are in appeal.

2. Learned senior counsel for the appellants concedes that the issue framed is inappropriate and does not bring out

the real issue which arose for consideration on the rival pleadings of the parties. Counsel concedes that the real issue was : "Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the defendant?"

3. Correcting the issue; as conceded to by learned counsel, we proceed to note the pleadings in the suits filed, which learned senior counsel for the appellants claims are identical. We thus refer to the plaint relating to CS(OS) No.3941/1992 pertaining to RFA (OS) No.1/2001. Seeking declaration, and specific performance and in the alternative damages, it is pleaded that the defendant i.e. DSIDC acquired land to establish an industrial complex and published a scheme in the year 1987 notifying the proposed industrial complex and invited applications from eligible persons desirous of establishing industrial units at the proposed industrial complex. It was notified in the scheme that those who would be found eligible would be allotted an industrial plot. It was pleaded that the plaintiff submitted an application under the scheme and after evaluating the project report submitted by the plaintiff, and being found eligible, was shocked to learn that no plot was allotted to the plaintiff when, after holding draw of lots, 1539 plots were allotted. It was pleaded that the scheme floated in the year 1987 did not envisage allotment of plots by draw of lots and that all eligible persons were entitled to a plot. It was pleaded that the allotments made in 1990 by draw of lots could not have amalgamated persons who had applied later.

4. The scheme referred to in the plaint notified in the year 1987, in the introduction, informed that out of 2000 industrial plots to be developed, 800 plots are ready for

allotment. Applications in the prescribed forms were invited and vide clause VIII of the scheme it stands notified that „ mere receipt of the application form by DSIDC does not create any right for consideration and allotment of a plot in favour of the applicant.‟ The said clause further informed that an Evaluation Committee appointed by DSIDC shall evaluate the proposals pertaining to the projects intended to be set up by the applicant and qualifying applicants shall be short listed by the Evaluation Committee. The clause further informs that the selected applicants shall be issued a provisional letter of allotment.

5. It is thus clear that the scheme draws a distinction between an applicant, a qualifying applicant and a selected applicant. The applicant would be whosoever applies. The qualifying applicant would be he whose application is clear by the Evaluation Committee. The selected candidates would be the one to whom a letter of allotment has to be issued.

6. Admittedly, the number of applicants who applied were far in excess. Even after evaluation, the number continued to exceed the plots available. By the time applications were received in 1987 pertaining to 800 plots already available and before the evaluation process was completed, the number of plots available for allotment rose to 1800. It be highlighted that the scheme floated in 1987 clearly made it known that about 2000 industrial plots would be finally carved out.

7. It is thus not a case of applicants who did not apply in 1987 being considered for allotment. Since the applicants were large in number, DSIDC thought it advisable to make

allotments when more number of plots were ready for allotment.

8. It is true that the scheme which was notified did not envisage allotment of plots to the eligible candidates by draw of lots. But, learned senior counsel for the appellants concedes that where the number of eligible candidates to be allotted plots, exceed the number of plots available, DSIDC would be entitled to evolve a fair mechanism to allot the plots and that holding a draw of lots would be fair mechanism.

9. Thus, no cause of action can accrue to any applicant who was found eligible and his name was entered in the draw of lots; upon the name of the candidate concerned being unsuccessful when the lots were picked.

10. Thus, as pleaded, no cause of action has been shown in the plaint; since admittedly the names of all the plaintiffs were included in the draw of lots.

11. With reference to the written statement filed, learned counsel for the appellants pleads that only 1539 plots were allotted. The number actually is 1537.

12. There is prima-facie merit in the plea sought to be advanced that if 1800 plots were available for allotment as notified in the year 1990, the notice informing that the list of persons to whom a plot was allotted would be displayed between 7th May, 1990 to 19th May, 1990; but only 1537 plots were allotted.

13. But, the problem which the appellants would be facing is that there are no pleadings to said effect in the plaints filed i.e. that DSIDC was obliged, while conducting the draw of lots, to have entered 1800 plots and with respect to each one of them, a name picked up or a number picked up so

that each of the 1800 plots could be allotted. We do not know, what would be the response of DSIDC in said circumstance.

14. It is settled law that issues have to be settled and decided on the pleadings of the parties and not what possible can emerge by way of controversy from the evidence or the material on the basis whereof the pleadings have been made.

15. We thus hold that as drafted, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action; and as regards the issue sought to be urged of there being a wrong committed in not allotting all 1800 plots and instead allotting only 1537 plots, we leave it to the appellants to take resort to such action as is available to them in law.

16. The appeals are dismissed.

17. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE January 11, 2012 nm