Brij Mohan Bansal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 5459 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: 26.11.2013

+      W.P.(C) 1209/2012
       BRIJ MOHAN BANSAL                                  ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr R.K. Jain, Adv

                         versus

    GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS               ..... Respondents
                   Through: Ms Anjana Gosain and Mr Pradeep,
                   Advs for respondents 1 and 2
                   Ms Anusuya Salwan and Mr Vikas Sood Advs
                   for DSIIDC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                             JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Respondents 1 and 2 are unnecessary parties. Their names are

accordingly deleted from the array of respondents.

Late Shri Sadhu Ram Bansal, father of the petitioner, who was

running a PVC Goods Manufacturing Unit at 2926/217, Vishram Nagar,

Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035, under the name and style of Mohan

Enterprises, applied to the respondents for allotment of an alternative

industrial plot under their relocation scheme, whereunder the persons

running an industrial unit in a non-conforming areas were to be allotted

industrial plots in conforming areas and, thereafter, they were required

to shut down the unit which they were running in the non-conforming

area. The aforesaid application was submitted on 31.12.1996 giving the

address of the applicant as 2926/217, Vishram Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi-

110035. Shri Sadhu Ram Bansal passed away on 05.01.2002. The case

of the petitioner is that they received no information from the

respondents with respect to the allotment of the alternative plot. Vide

letter dated 27.12.2004, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, widow of late Shri Sadhu

Ram Bansal, referring to the above-referred application, sought to know

whether any industrial plot had been sanctioned to her against

Registration No. N-3367. It would be pertinent to note here that

aforesaid was the registration number allotted to late Shri Sadhu Ram

Bansal when he applied for allotment of an industrial plot. The death

certificate of late Shri Sadhu Ram Bansal was also enclosed to the

aforesaid letter dated 27.12.2004. There was no response from the

respondents to the aforesaid letter of Smt. Shakuntala Devi, who has

since expired. Vide letter dated 23.10.2008, the petitioner, referring to

the aforesaid registration, sought to have further information with

respect to allotment of an alternative plot.

2. Vide letter dated 18.11.2008, responding to an application filed

by the petitioner on 24.10.2008 under Right to Information Act, he was

informed that a plot measuring 150 square metres was allotted against

application No. 53474 of M/s Mohan Enterprises and the said allotment

had been cancelled on account of non-payment of 50% of the land

premium. On receipt of the aforesaid communication under RTI Act, the

petitioner sent a letter dated 25.11.2008 to the respondent stating therein

that when he got the pass prepared for visiting their office, his address

was recorded as 2926/217, Vishnu Garden and no communication was

sent to him at his correct address, i.e., 2926/217, Vishram Nagar, Tri

Nagar, Delhi-110035. Vide letter dated 10.02.2009, the petitioner also

submitted copies of the booking receipt and certain other documents to

the respondents. He also obtained copies of the applications submitted

by his father and other documents under Right to Information Act. Vide

letter dated 06.05.2010, the petitioner submitted proof of address given

by late Shri Sadhu Ram Bansal to Income-tax Department. The

petitioner later also submitted an Indemnity Bond in favour of DSIIDC

and relinquishment deeds, executed by the other legal heirs of his father

in his favour in respect of the aforesaid allotment. Since no allotment

has, thereafter, been made to the petitioner, he is before this Court

seeking the following relief:-

i. "Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents, thereby directing the respondents to allot the Industrial plot to the Petitioner against the balance payment and to revoke the cancellation of the same.

ii. Cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

3. In its counter-affidavit, respondent No. 3-DSIIDC has not

disputed that late Shri Sadhu Ram Bansal had applied on 31.12.1996 for

allotment of an industrial plot under its relocation scheme. It is also not

disputed that the address given in the application was 2926/217,

Vishram Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035. This is also not in dispute

that the demand letter dated 25.04.2000 was sent at the address

2926/217, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. Vishnu Garden is a colony

altogether different from Vishram Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi. Having

been sent at a wrong address, the demand cum allotment letter was not

received by the allottee. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that since the petitioner failed to make payment in

terms of the allotment letter, the allotment came to be cancelled vide

communication dated 10.07.2002. A perusal of the said communication

would show that it was sent at the address 2926/217, Vishnu Garden,

New Delhi. Thus, not only the demand letter, but the cancellation letter

also was sent by the respondents at a wrong address. In the absence of

receipt of demand-cum-allotment letter, the applicant had no

opportunity to make payment of 50% of the land premium in terms of

demand letter dated 25.04.2000. Since the applicant did not receive

even the cancellation letter dated 10.07.2002, he had no opportunity

even to make a representation against the said cancellation.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that a number of

public notices were issued by the respondents in the newspapers calling

upon the allottees to make payment of the balance land premium, but

despite that, neither father of the petitioner nor the petitioner made

payment of the land premium in terms of the demand, raised by

DSIIDC. In my view, public notices, which DSIIDC issued from time

to time, cannot be a substitute for the individual allotment cum demand

letters, which it was required to send to each allottee. In the absence of

any information of the allotment to him, the father of the petitioner or

even the petitioner had no reason to comply with the public notices,

issued from time to time since the said notices were meant for those who

had been allotted an alternative plot and neither the father of the

petitioner nor the petitioner had any information of the allotment, which

the respondents had made vide letter dated 25.04.2000.

5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the respondents are required

to allot an alternative industrial plot measuring 150 square metres to the

petitioner, subject to his satisfying them that the other legal heirs of late

Shri Sadhu Ram Bansal have relinquished all their right, title or interest

in the booking in question in his favour. The learned counsel for the

petitioner states that relinquishment deeds from other legal heirs of late

Shri Sadhu Ram Bansal have already been submitted to DSIIDC.

Subject to verification of those documents, the respondent-DSIIDC shall

issue a demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner, within two weeks

from today in respect of an industrial plot measuring 150 square metres.

While issuing demand-cum-allotment letter, the respondent will charge

the same price which was stipulated in the demand-cum-allotment letter

dated 25.04.2000, but will be entitled to charge simple interest at the

rate of 18% per annum. The petitioner shall make payment in terms of

the aforesaid demand letter, within four weeks of receiving the said

letter. Possession of the plot shall be given to the petitioner, within four

weeks of his making payment and completing other formalities in this

regard.

The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

V.K. JAIN, J

NOVEMBER 26, 2013 BG