Delhi High Court
Meenakshi Choudhrie vs D.D.A. & Ors. on 8 May, 2012
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : April 18, 2012
Pronounced on: May 08, 2012
+ (01) W.P.(C) 4197/2000
MEENAKSHI CHOUDHRIE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Mr. Sumeet
Sharma, Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Mr.
Shanshank Singh & Mr. Anupam
Singh, Advocates.
versus
D.D.A. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
Reserved on : April 25, 2012
Pronounced on: May 08, 2012
+ (02) W.P.(C) 826/2001
SHYAM SUNDER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
AND
+ (03) W.P.(C) 1143/2001
M/S JYOTI METAL & ALLIED INDUS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind Kumar,
Advocates
versus
D.D.A ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 1
+ (04) W.P.(C) 2006/2001
M/S CARMAN AUTO ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (05) W.P.(C) 2117/2001
MANMOHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (06) W.P.(C) 2195/2001
M/S SOUTH END INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (07) W.P.(C) 2204/2001
M/S K.E.I. METAL (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 2
+ (08) W.P.(C) 2683/2001
M/S DESH INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (09) W.P.(C) 2684/2001
MADAN LAL JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (10) W.P.(C) 2685/2001
M/S S.P.JAIN & CO. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (11) W.P.(C) 2687/2001 & CM No. 10467/2001
DHARAM BIR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 3
+ (12) W.P.(C) 2707/2001
M/S CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS P. L ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (13) W.P.(C) 2750/2001
VINAYAKAM STEEL (P) LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
DDA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (14) W.P.(C) 2785/2001
SONAL UDYOG (P) LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (15) W.P.(C) 2922/2001
M/S MEXIT INDIA P. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 4
+ (16) W.P.(C) 2938/2001
SHREE KISHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (17) W.P.(C) 3134/2001 & CM No. 12573/2001
PAMA STEELS (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
DDA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (18) W.P.(C) 3163/2001
M/S SHIB CHANDRA BANERJEE FAMI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (19) W.P.(C) 3212/2001
GENERAL GARMENTS (DELHI) PVT. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
DDA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 5
+ (20) W.P.(C) 3326/2001
M/S ORIENTAL BUILDING & FURNIS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (21) W.P.(C) 4528/2001
PUSHKAR ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (22) W.P.(C) 3573/2002
PEAREY LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (23) W.P.(C) 46/2002 & CM No. 99/2002
M/S. PITAMBER STEELS P. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A & ANR. .... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 6
+ (24) W.P.(C) 4111/2002
M/S. S. TECH. INFO (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (25) W.P.(C) 2100/2004
SH. S.P. SABHARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr. Govind
Kumar, Advocates
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (26) W.P.(C) 2413/1998
S.P.VIRMANI & SON P. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Varma, Advocate along
with petitioner in person
versus
D.D.A. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal and Mr. Rahul
Bhandari, Advocate for DDA
+ (27) W.P.(C) 2119/1999 & C.M. No. 5090/1999
JAI KISHAN DAS GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Varma, Advocate
versus
D.D.A. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 7
+ (28) W.P.(C) 4335/2000
ASHA VIRMANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Varma, Advocate
versus
D.D.A & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (29) W.P.(C) 8357/2002 & CM No. 14075/2002
USHA SERVICES & CONSULTANTS LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinod K. Shukla, Advocate
versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (30) W.P.(C) 3033/2001
MAAKALI STEELS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Advocate
versus
DDA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (31) W.P.(C) 3378/2001
M/S DELHI INDUSTRIAL CORPN. ..... Petitioner
Through: None
versus
D.D.A. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (32) W.P.(C) 3623/2001 & CM No.6309/2001
NARINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through None
versus
DDA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 8
+ (33) W.P.(C) 4213/2001
SEIKI AUTO (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through None
versus
DDA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (34) W.P.(C) 63/2003
ANA SALES P. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinod K. Shukla, Advocate
versus
D.D.A & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
+ (35) W.P.(C) 2002/2003
S.K.AGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: None
versus
D.D.A. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
%
ORDER
08.05.2012
1. Petitioners of above captioned 35 petitions are the
allottees/lessees of Industrial plots in the Mohan Cooperative
Industrial Estate and they are challenging the levy of composition
charges w.e.f. 1st January, 1993, by the respondent - DDA. Since the
grounds of challenge laid by the petitioners to the impugned
imposition of composition charges for not completing the construction
on the Industrial Plots allotted to them are identical, therefore the
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 9
above captioned petitions were heard together and are being disposed
of by this common order while treating W.P.(C) No. 4197/2000 and
W.P.(C) No. 826/2001 as lead cases.
2. Since the basic amenities/infrastructure was not developed,
therefore on the representation of Mohan Cooperative Industrial
Society and its members, time for construction on the Industrial Plots
was extended by the respondent from time to time and finally upto
31st December, 1992 without payment of composition fees. It is the
case of the petitioners that they had sought extension of time to raise
construction on their Industrial Plots in Mohan Cooperative Industrial
Estate (hereinafter referred to as subject premises) and in the year
1996, respondent had conveyed to the petitioners that no extension of
time without payment of composition charges can be granted beyond
the year 1992, as respondent - DDA was not responsible for providing
the essential services and because there has been massive conversion
of the plots in this Estate from industrial to commercial use.
3. Petitioners rely upon Joint Inspection Report of 24th September,
1999 (Annexure P-17) which was carried out in the Mohan
Cooperative Industrial Estate by the senior officer of DDA/MCD/
DVB(DESU) in pursuance to the directions issued vide order of 22nd
September, 1999 in CW No. 79/1998 (Annexure P-16). In the Joint
Inspection Report of 24th September, 1999 (Annexure P-17) it was
noted that at Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, trunk sewer and
trunk water mains are in the process of being laid and are not
complete and that 66 KV Grid sub-station for providing electricity
was commissioned in July, 1999 and Mohan Cooperative Industrial
Estate has not been handed over by DDA to MCD for
providing basic amenities like roads, storm water drain, etc.
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 10
However, the first round of litigation ended with a direction to
respondent - DDA to decide the representations of the petitioners.
4. Vide order of 26th December, 2000 (Annexure P-7), permanent
Lok Adalat of respondent - DDA had upon inspection found that till
24th September, 1999, there were no trunk sewer and trunk water pipe
line in Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate and had therefore,
recommended that the petitioners be not compelled to pay
composition charges at least upto 31st December, 1999 and for the
purpose of calculating composition charges after 31st December, 1999,
the actual year commencing from 1st January, 2000 be counted as
fourth year after expiry of three years of the perpetual sub-lease deed.
5. In the counter Affidavit filed by respondent - DDA in May,
2001, it was asserted that basic amenities like water, sewerage and
electricity are very much available and so, there is no justification for
not raising construction by the petitioners upon the Industrial Plots in
question. To justify the refusal to waive of composition charges
beyond December, 1992 the stand taken by respondent - DDA in the
counter affidavit is that in A Block of Mohan Cooperative Industrial
Estate, 90 per cent of the plots have been built up. That is to say, out
of 337 Industrial Units in the Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
'no objection certificate' has been obtained in respect of 249 plots and
so, there is hardly any justification for the petitioners not to raise
construction over their Industrial plots.
6. At the hearing of these petitions, learned counsel for the
petitioners had strongly relied upon the Joint Inspection Report of 24th
September, 1999 (Annexure P-17) as well as Lok Adalat order
(Annexure P-7) to contend that the actual year for calculation of the
composition charges has to be w.e.f. 1st January, 2000.
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 11
7. To justify imposition of composition charges for the period
beyond December, 1992, reliance was placed upon 'no objection
certificate' issued by the Municipal Authorities and it was asserted by
learned counsel for the respondent that the Lok Adalat order
(Annexure P-7) is not of binding nature and in support of this
assertion, reliance is placed upon decision in State of Punjab & Anr.
Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors., 2008 (2) SCALE 52.
8. To rebut the stand of the respondent, learned counsel for the
petitioners had pointed out that 'no objection certificate' have been
issued in respect of the Industrial Units in A Block only, which were
abutting the main Mathura Road and had immense commercial value,
whereas petitioners are in B Block, where basic amenities are lacking
as has been found in the Joint Inspection Report of 24th September,
1999 (Annexure P-17) and in such a situation, upon finding basic
amenities to be lacking, in CWP No.7372/2002, Hamdard (Wakf)
Laboratories (India) vs. Delhi Development Authority, decided on
22nd November, 2004, it was held that the composition fee was not
payable.
9. Having deliberated upon the submissions advanced in the light
of the decisions cited and the material on record, I find that
respondent's Lok Adalat order (Annexure P-7) does not have binding
effect in view of the decision in Jalour Singh (supra) but the cogent
recommendation made therein can always be taken into consideration.
10. In any case, not only in the inspection conducted by the
respondent's Lok Adalat but even in the Joint Inspection Report of
24th September, 1999 (Annexure P-17), it was found that the basic
infrastructure in the Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate was
lacking, i.e., trunk sewer and trunk water mains were in the process of
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 12
being laid and the power supply was recently commissioned in July,
1999.
11. The averments made in respect of aforesaid Joint Inspection
Report of 24th September, 1999 (Annexure P-17) are contained in
paragraph no: 16 of the writ petition and in the corresponding
paragraph of the counter Affidavit, it is merely stated by the
respondent - DDA that it is a matter of record and needs no reply. In
such a situation, the respondent cannot fall back upon the 'no
objection certificates'' issued in respect of A Block of the Mohan
Cooperative Industrial Estate. Pertinently, none of the 'no objection
certificate' pertain to B Block of Mohan Cooperative Industrial
Estate i.e., relating to the subject matter of these petitions.
12. In view of the ratio of the decision in Hamdard (supra) and the
Joint Inspection Report of 24th September, 1999 (Annexure P-17), and
particularly in view of the stand of respondent - DDA in its counter
Affidavit of the basic amenities being available when the counter filed
i.e., in May, 2001, it becomes apparent that the basic amenities to
enable raising of construction on plots in 'B' Block of Mohan
Cooperative Industrial Estate were not available prior thereto. It
cannot be ignored that the respondent - DDA had issued a Public
Notice (Annexure P-3) giving the deadline of 30th June, 2001 to
complete the construction while making it clear that no further
extension would be given beyond the aforesaid date.
13. Viewed in the afore-noted perspective, respondent - DDA is
precluded from charging the composition fee from the petitioners up
to 31st December, 1999 and for calculating composition fee, 1st
January, 2000 would be treated as the fourth year after expiry of three
years of perpetual sub-lease.
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 13
14. With aforesaid directions, these petitions are disposed of, while
leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, pending
applications are also disposed of as infructuous.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
May 08, 2012.
pkb
W.P. (C) No.4197/2000 & W.P.(C) No.826/2001 & 33 Connected matters Page 14
