DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. AMBITIOUS ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2.) THESE 11 appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29/07/1994 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court passed in appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27/05/1994. The judgment of the learned single Judge decided as many as 25 writ petitions, while he allowed 14 of them 11 were dismissed. Delhi Development Authority (for short 'the DDA') had filed Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petitions. 11 of these are before us.

(3.) NOTICE dated 8/02/1976 informed all concerned of the decision of the DDA to the industries functioning in non-conforming areas or the areas which were under acquisition for various public purposes to obtain land in the conforming industrial areas which had been developed by the DDA in different localities in Delhi in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan. The applicants were required to make applications on prescribed forms. The notice also informed the applicants to deposit earnest money on the basis of the size of the plot applied by them for allotment. Price of the land was to be deposited in four quarterly instalments. The last date for receipt of the application was 31/03/1976. A second notice was issued by DDA in September 1976 requiring the applicants to pay 30 Per Cent of the total premium of the land by 31/10/1976. This notice also specified the rates to be charged for different types of developed plots. It is not disputed that the appellants did apply, deposit earnest money as well as the premium as required by the two notices. Their applications however came to the rejected in the year 1988 and the earnest money and premium were also refunded. In the letter rejecting the applications no ground was mentioned as to why the applications were rejected. But it is a common ground that these were rejected as the applicants did not possess the municipal licence and any allotment on that account would contravene the statutory provisions of the Nazul Rules. Section 416 of the DMC Act is as under :