Delhi High Court
Airports Authority Of India vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 11 January, 2016
Author: Manmohan
#31
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 77/2016 & CM APPLs. 416-417/2016
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K.K. Rai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Syed Hassan
Bin Taher, Mr. Anshul Rai and
Mr. S.P. Pandey, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajay Verma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Mishra
and Ms. Kirti Parmar, Advocates for
R-1/DDA.
Mr. Rajan Khosla, Advocate for R-2.
% Date of Decision : 11th January, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to handover /
transfer 60 acres of land to the petitioner as decided in
the meeting held on 24.12.2001 and as per the
requirements of the Petitioner i.e. 60 acres of land for
residential use or to hand over 60 acres of land as
decided in the minutes of meeting held vide letter dated
10.05.2012 circulated vide letter dated 17.07.2012 and
minutes of the meeting dated 01.10.2012; and
(b) Pass any other further order(s), which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the present case."
(emphasis supplied)
2. Mr. K.K. Rai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that on
24th December, 2001 a decision was taken that petitioner would provide
ownership of 60 mtrs. width of road to the DDA in lieu of which DDA
would provide 60 acres of land to the AAI along with the funnel of the
proposed runway. The relevant portion of the Minutes of Meeting dated
24th December, 2001 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"After detailed discussions, the following decisions were taken:-
(i) The Airports Authority of India would provide the
ownership of land for 60 mtrs. width of road falling
within their area to DDA.
(ii) DDA will construct and upgrade the road with
specifications provided to suit the requirements of
Airports Authority of India and PWD and also construct
of underpass under the railway line.
(iii) DDA will construct a boundary wall for security
purposes alongside the road.
(iv) DDA will provide 60 acres of land along the funnel of the
proposed runway to Airports Authority of India. This
land will be utilized by the AAI for maintaining as green
and for aviation related activities.
(v) The land of Dwarka, Phase-II notified for acquisition on
12.12.2001 would be expedited for emergency
acquisition. A formal request in this regard would be
sent by DDA to Secretary (L&B) GNCTD to enable them
to complete land acquisition within two months. Land
Acquisition for about 2 KM stretch between Bapraula
and Najafgarh Road to connect Bapraula with Rohtak
Road via Bakarwala by GNCTD/DDA."
(emphasis supplied)
3. Mr. Rai states that as no land was handed over by the respondent-
DDA, petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 2098/2012, which was
disposed of vide order dated 13th April, 2012. The relevant portion of the
said order is reproduced hereiblow:-
"After hearing counsel for the parties at some length, it is
deemed appropriate to refer the dispute raised in this petition to
a Committee comprising of Secretary, Ministry of Urban
Development; Secretary, Civil Aviation; Vice Chairperson of
DDA and Chairperson of Airports Authority, who shall earnestly
strive to resolve the dispute between the two Instrumentalities of
the State and to take effective decision expeditiously i.e.
preferably within a period of three months from today. Let the
first meeting of the said Committee be held within a period of
four weeks from today and status report of the deliberations
undertaken be placed on record from time to time.
Needless to state that that if either of the party is aggrieved by
the decision of the aforesaid constituted Committee, it would be
open to it to take recourse to law, as available.
This petition and pending application are disposed of in the
aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs."
4. Mr. Rai states that in pursuance to the said order, meetings were held
on 10th May, 2012 and 1st October, 2012. The relevant portions of said
minutes of meeting are reproduced hereibelow:-
A) Minutes of Meeting dated 10th May, 2012 circulated on 17th July,
2012:-
"3.1 After detailed deliberations in the matter, which brought
out that the land originally provided by AAI was non-residential
and was specifically for providing connectivity to T-3, and AAI is
now demanding 60 acres of residential land and though DDA is
very short of residential land, it has tried to accommodate AAI,
Secretary, Urban Development and Vice Chairman, DDA agreed
to consider the allotment/transfer of 60 acres of land to AAI as
under:-
(i) 13 acres of land at village Sayurpur has already been
agreed by DDA for allotment to the Ministry of Civil
Aviation for accommodation/housing requirements of
CISF personnel, deployed at Indira Gandhi International
Airport, New Delhi. DDA agreed that it will hand over
this land to the AAI/Ministry of Civil Aviation, within one
week's time.
(ii) DDA agreed in principle to consider the allotment of
another 10 acres of land in Dwarka with land use
restriction as Aviation related activities to AAI. The exact
location is to be identified by DDA and DDA agreed to
identify the land as soon as possible and communicate the
same to AAI.
(iii) DDA agreed to consider the transfer of balance land (60
Acres - 23 Acres) in the approach funnel of runway 11/29
of IGIA to AAI as proposed earlier, to be maintained as
given area.
4. Ministry of Urban Development and DDA assured that
above transfer of land would be considered at the earliest. VC,
DDA requested that the court case should be withdrawn by AAI
following the above decisions. Secretary, Civil Aviation agreed
for the withdrawal of the case by AAI.
5. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair."
B) Minutes of Meeting dated 1st October, 2012 :-
"Action by AAI: to indicate this land required for funnel of
existing and proposed runways, thereafter, DDA will earmark
the same.
Action by DDA: To allot 13 acres of land free of cost at
Sayoorpur village and allotment of 2 acres of land at Vasant
Kunj and 10 acres of land for residential purpose at Sector 16,
Dwarka to AAI."
6. Mr. Rai states that in pursuance to the aforesaid minutes of meetings,
respondent-DDA should be directed to hand over 60 acres of land to the
petitioner.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Verma, learned senior standing counsel
for respondent-DDA states that discussions between Ministry of Civil
Aviation and Ministry of Urban Development are still on and certain issues
like cost, quantum and locality of land to be given are still being discussed.
In support of his contention, he refers to a note dated 8 th March, 2013 at
page 162 of the paper book. The relevant portion of the said note is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"After 2nd meeting which was held on 1.10.2012, vide their
letter dated 11.10.2012 (copy enclosed), DDA has gone back
from its earlier commitments and decision taken in the meeting
held on 1.1.0.2012 by stating the following:
i) AAI will have to bear the cost of 13 acres of land of
Sayurpur village;
ii) It is not possible for DDA to allot 8.2 acres of land at
Sector 18B, Dwarka to AAI as discussed in the meeting
held on 1.10.2012 and the same is already developed as
residential complex of DDA."
8. Mr. Verma also states that in the Minutes of Meeting dated 12th
December, 2014, which is subsequent to the two minutes referred to by
learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it was agreed that DDA would only
hand over 23 acres of land in full and final settlement. The relevant portion
of the Minutes of Meeting referred to by learned senior standing counsel for
DDA is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Finally, it was decided that DDA will hand over the
possession of the 13 acres of land at Sayoorpur, if not handed
over till date, the Ministry of Civil Aviation on Priority without
charging any premium. Further, DDA, will identify another 10
acres of land at Dwarka for residential purpose which will also
be transferred to AAI. Once both these land parcels are handed
over, DDA's obligation in this regard is completed and AAI will
not raise the issue of transfer of land from DDA."
9. Today in Court, Mr. Verma has handed over a letter dated 11 th
August, 2015 written by Institutional Branch of DDA to Under Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development which is actually in the nature of a status
report to the Ministry of Urban Development in response to a query raised
by Ministry of Civil Aviation. The same is taken on record. The relevant
portion of the said letter reads as under:-
"Kindly refer the above said D.O. letter dated 27.7.2015
from Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation and letter dated
6.8.2015 on the above subject. A status report on the subject
has been prepared and attached as Annexure-1. The issues
raised in the note of the AAI forwarded vide the D.O. letter have
been examined in the DDA and status/observations are given
below:-
Transfer of 60 acres DDA land to AAI at Dwarka
The issue of transfer of 60 acres of land to AAI was
discussed in the meeting held under VC, DDA on 13.8.2014 in
which it was decided that DDA will hand over the possession of
13 acres of land at Sayurpur to MoCA on priority without
charging any premium. Further, DDA, will identify another 10
acres of land at Dwarka for residential purpose which will also
be transferred to AAI. Once both theses land parcels are
handed over, DDA's obligation in this regard is completed and
AAI will not raise the issue of transfer of land from DDA. Copy
of the minutes is placed as Annexure-3.
a. Transfer/handing over 13 acres of land at Sayurpur for
accommodation/housing requirement of CISF personnel
deployed at the Airport.
13 acres of land at village Sayurpur was identified by
DDA and allotment letter was issued to MoCA vide DDA's
letter dated 8.5.2012 (Annexure-2). Presently, it has been
reported by the Land Management Deptt. that, out of the said
13 acres of land, about 6 acres of land is under litigation under
Section 24(2) of LARR, 2013 and the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi has passed an order to maintain status quo in respect of
the suit land in WP No. 2541 of 2015. The remaining 7 acres of
land can be allotted to AAI for the Housing development of
CISF personnel. The 6 acres of land under litigation will be
allotted to AAI, if the cases are decided in the favour of DDA.
b. Regarding allotment of 10 acres of land in Dwarka,
It is submitted that DDA has proposed to allot of 10 acres
of land at sector 24 Dwarka vide letter dated 3.7.2003.
Presently the land is forming part of the Diplomatic Enclave.
Hence an alternative land measuring 7.41 acres has been
identified in sector 16B and is being processed for the
feasibility study. At present no other land pocket is available in
Dwarka for this purpose. This 7.41 acres of land can be
allotted to AAI for residential development as per planning
norms.
It is again reiterated that once both these land parcels
are handed over, DDA's obligation in this regard is completed
and AAI will not raise the issue of transfer of land from DDA."
10. In rejoinder, Mr. K.K. Rai, learned senior counsel for petitioner states
that present writ petition is maintainable as Minutes of Meeting dated 24 th
December, 2001 constitute a sovereign guarantee. In support of his
submissions, he refers to a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Airports Authority of India and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and
Ors., W.P.(C) 76/2010 decided on 4th January, 2012 wherein it has been
held as under:-
"17. In the present case, firstly, it may be noted that the primary
relief is to seek enforcement of a sovereign guarantee of the State
of Jammu and Kashmir. Moreover, there is absolutely no
disputed question of fact arising before this Court. The factum of
the petitioner having invested in the said bond is not in dispute.
The fact that the said bonds were issued by respondent no.2, and
guaranteed by respondent no.1 has also not been disputed. The
fact that there was consistent default in payment of interest, and
in redemption of the said bonds on the due dates is also not in
dispute. It is not the respondents case that any other amounts
have been paid under the said bonds, apart from those disclosed
by the petitioners in the writ petition. There is no accounting
dispute raised by the respondents."
11. Mr. Rai also refers to a judgment of the Apex Court in Gujarat State
Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (1983) 3 SCC 379
wherein it has been held as under:-
"9. It was next contended that the dispute between the parties is
in the realm of contract and even if there was a concluded
contract between the parties about grant and acceptance of loan,
the failure of the Corporation to carry out its part of the
obligation may amount to breach of contract for which a remedy
lies elsewhere but a writ of mandamus cannot be issued
compelling the Corporation to specifically perform the contract.
It is too late in the day to contend that the instrumentality of the
State which would be "other authority" under Article 12 of the
Constitution can commit breach of a solemn undertaking on
which other side has acted and then contend that the party
suffering by the breach of contract may sue for damages but
cannot compel specific performance of the contract. It was not
disputed and in fairness to Mr Bhatt, it must be said that he did
not dispute that the Corporation which is set up under Section 3
of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1955 is an
instrumentality of the State and would be "other authority"
under Article 12 of the Constitution. By its letter of offer dated
July 24, 1978 and the subsequent agreement dated February 1,
1979 the appellant entered into a solemn agreement in
performance of its statutory duty to advance the loan of Rs 30
lakhs to the respondent. Acting on the solemn undertaking, the
respondent proceeded to undertake and execute the project of
setting up a 4-star hotel at Baroda. The agreement to advance
the loan was entered into in performance of the statutory duty
cast on the Corporation by the statute under which it was created
and set up. On its solemn promise evidenced by the
aforementioned two documents, the respondent incurred
expenses, suffered liabilities to set up a hotel. Presumably, if the
loan was not forthcoming, the respondent may not have
undertaken such a huge project. Acting on the promise of the
appellant evidenced by documents, the respondent proceeded to
suffer further liabilities to implement and execute the project. In
the back drop of this incontrovertible fact situation, the principle
of promissory estoppel would come into play........."
12. In the opinion of this Court, the Minutes of Meeting dated 24 th
December, 2001 do not constitute a sovereign guarantee. It is pertinent to
mention that the primary prayer in Airports Authority of India and Ors. Vs.
State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (supra) was to seek enforcement of
sovereign guarantee issued by the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the said
case respondent no. 2 had invited investment in bonds guaranteed by the
State of Jammu & Kashmir. The said fact that the bond was issued and
guaranteed by the State of Jammu & Kashmir was not in dispute. However,
in the present case, no such sovereign guarantee was given. Consequently,
the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.
13. Even Gujarat State Financial Corporation (supra) has no application
to the present case as it deals with the concept of promissory estoppel.
14. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, a writ petition normally cannot
be filed to seek possession of land. Even if possession is sought in
pursuance to a minutes of meeting, the petitioner must file a suit as relief of
specific performance cannot be granted in a writ petition. Just because a
court in an earlier writ petition directed Committee of secretaries to examine
the petitioner's request for land, does not mean that present writ petition is
maintainable, especially when disputed questions of fact are involved. For
instance, in the present case, parties are not at ad-idem with regard to
identity, boundary of the land, extent of land to be transferred, as well as its
cost.
15. In the present case, as the effect of Minutes of Meeting dated 24th
December, 2001 would have to be examined in the context of subsequent
minutes of meeting, this Court is of the view that present writ petition is not
maintainable. Accordingly, present writ petition and applications are
dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail alternate remedy as may be
available to it in accordance with law. The rights and contentions of both
parties are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
JANUARY 11, 2016
rn
