Kamal Chaudhary vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2019 Latest Caselaw 2645 Del

$~30
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        W.P.(C) 274/2019
         KAMAL CHAUDHARY                               ..... Petitioner

                            Through:   Ms Priya Kumar and Mr Tejas
                                       Chhabra, Advocates.
                            versus

         GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
         AND ORS.                                   ..... Respondents

                            Through:   Mr      Kaustubh   Anshuraj,
                                       Advocate for R-1.
                                       Ms Shobhna Takiar, Advocate
                                       for DDA.
                                       Ms Deepali Gupta, Advocate
                                       for DSIIDC.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                      ORDER

         %            22.05.2019
VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The petitioner impugns a communication dated 14.12.2018 issued by the Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (DSIIDC), rejecting the petitioner's application for conversion of the industrial shed bearing no. A-80, Packaging Complex, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi - 110015 (hereafter 'the Premises') from leasehold to freehold. DSIIDC (respondent no. 2) contends that the scheme of conversion from leasehold to freehold issued in November 2005 (hereafter "Conversion Scheme 2005"), is not applicable to flatted factories and industrial sheds in multi-

storeyed buildings.

2. The petitioner disputes the above and contends that the Conversion Scheme 2005 is applicable not only to industrial plots but also to industrial sheds in a multi-storey complex. It is further contended that DSIIDC had invited applications and had accepted the conversion charges way back in January 2013, without any such reservation and therefore, it could not now deny the petitioner's request for conversion of its property from leasehold to freehold. In addition, it is also submitted that DSIIDC had in fact, converted flatted factories in certain cases from leasehold to freehold.

3. Ms Priya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended that the Conversion Scheme 2005 was also implemented by DDA and it had converted multi-storey units from leasehold to freehold under the said scheme. She earnestly contended that the same policy could not be interpreted in a different manner by two different agencies of the Government of NCT of Delhi.

4. The petitioner claims to be in possession of an industrial shed in a multi-storey complex bearing no. A-80, Packaging Complex, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi - 110015. The petitioner states that he had acquired the Premises in terms of an Agreement to Sell and Purchase, General Power of Attorney and a Will dated 28.12.2002, executed by the sole proprietor of M/s. S.C. Marketing, who was the original allottee of the Premises.

5. DDA had allotted certain tracts of land to DSIIDC for

development and construction of industrial sheds. It is stated that DSIIDC has constructed over 1200 industrial sheds under various schemes promulgated by the Government of Delhi in various industrial areas. This also includes industrial sheds built under the "Self-Financing Scheme" launched in the year 1984-1985. The petitioner states that 226 sheds were constructed in the Kirti Nagar Packaging Complex, which is a complex comprising of multi-storeyed buildings.

6. In the year 2005, the Commissioner of Industries notified the Conversion Scheme 2005. The said scheme is applicable to all built- up industrial plots developed by the Industries Department and DSIIDC. Subsequently, by a Circular dated 22.12.2011, the Commissioner of Industries, Government of India fixed conversion charges for various industrial areas on a provisional basis. The said industrial areas also included the Kirti Nagar Industrial Area. By an order dated 30.04.2013, DSIIDC decided to accept applications for conversion from leasehold to freehold along with provisional charges computed by enhancing the charges fixed in the previous year by 10%. Admittedly, DSIIDC has converted around 360 industrial sheds from leasehold to freehold till the year 2013. Concededly, the sheds also included a few industrial sheds in multi-storeyed complexes.

7. On 22.01.2013, the petitioner submitted an application under the Conversion Scheme 2005 for conversion of the Premises from leasehold to freehold. The petitioner also deposited a sum of ₹61,375/- as conversion charges. The petitioner states that his application was

placed before the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee, which recommended conversion of the Premises.

8. Since the petitioner did not receive any further communication regarding his application, the petitioner filed a writ petition (being W.P.(C) 9911 of 2018), which was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 19.09.2018. By the said order, this Court directed DSIIDC to convert the Premises from leasehold to freehold subject to the petitioner depositing the necessary conversion charges and otherwise complying with all other requirements.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 14.12.2018 (which is impugned herein), rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the Premises was not eligible for conversion under the Conversion Scheme 2005.

10. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of DSIIDC affirming that the Conversion Scheme 2005 did not specifically mention conversion of multi-storeyed flats. In the circumstances, DSIIDC sought a clarification from the Department of Industries, GNCTD. The issue regarding conversion of such multi-storeyed industrial sheds was examined and it was found that the Conversion Scheme 2005 did not apply to multi-storeyed sheds. DSIIDC was, accordingly, advised that since there is no policy for such conversion, DSIIDC may work out a policy so that the proposal could be examined further and necessary approvals could be obtained.

11. As is apparent from the above, the principal controversy relates

to whether the Conversion Scheme 2005 covers the industrial sheds in the multi-storeyed buildings. Clause (1) of the Conversion Scheme 2005 is material and is set out below:-

"SALIENT FEATURES OF THE SCHEME

1. The scheme covers all built up Industrial Plots developed by the Industries Department and The Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIDC) including Industrial Sheds where the lease had been granted on behalf of the President of India. The Scheme, however, does not include industrial plots allotted under the Relocation Scheme."

12. It is apparent from the above that whereas the Conversion Scheme 2005 covers built-up industrial plots, including industrial sheds, the same does not specifically include industrial flats in a multi- storeyed building. Although the Premises is referred to as an industrial shed, it is a flat in a multi-storeyed building used for industrial purposes.

13. The question whether the Conversion Scheme 2005 is applicable to such flatted factories was considered by GNCTD, which is the framer of the policy in question (Conversion Scheme 2005) and it was clarified that the said policy does not cover such units.

14. This Court is of the view that the matters of policy are required to be interpreted by the framers of the policy. It would not be apposite for this Court to supplant its view with respect to an interpretation of a policy in place of the interpretation provided by the makers of the policy. Any ambiguity in a policy has to, in the first instance, be

addressed by the makers of the policy. Unless such interpretation is wholly unreasonable and contrary to law, no interference would be warranted by the courts.

15. The learned counsel appearing for DSIIDC had also explained that a few industrial units in a multi-storey complex had been converted from leasehold to freehold prior to 2013 on an erroneous basis. In this regard, a complaint was filed before the Anti-Corruption Bureau and proceedings in this regard have been initiated. She further states that opinion has also been sought as to what further action can be taken in those cases. In this view, the fact that few multi-storeyed sheds had been converted from leasehold to freehold prior to 2013 is of little assistance to the petitioner.

16. The contention, that DDA has also converted multi-storey industrial units from leasehold to freehold, is erroneous. DDA has filed an affidavit affirming that it has issued a separate scheme for conversion of industrial plots sold/allotted by DDA, from leasehold to freehold on payment of conversion charges. It is further affirmed that the said scheme also applies to industrial plots and is not applicable to multi-storeyed units and flatted factories.

17. In view of the above, the decision of DSIIDC to reject the petitioner's application cannot be interfered with by this court in these proceedings.

18. Having stated the above, this Court is also of the view that DSIIDC ought not to have accepted the conversion charges while still being unsure of the applicability of the Conversion Scheme 2005.

DSIIDC has further retained the conversion charges paid by the petitioner for almost six years prior to rejecting the petitioner's application. Plainly, such conduct is not justified and cannot be countenanced.

19. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that DSIIDC must forthwith return the conversion charges along with interest computed at 9% per annum. It is so directed.

20. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 22, 2019 RK