CHOPRA DYEING INDUSTRIES Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Several writ petitions were posted together and all of them were heard. The general question arising in all these writ petitions is decided in this writ petition and thereafter the principles are applied to the facts of each case separately.

(2.) The petitioner, M/s.Chopra Dyeing Industries is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for allotment of a plot in the Mangolpuri Industrial Area. Phase I & II.

(3.) According to the petitioner (for the sake of convenience I am referring the petitioner as 'he' though the petitioner is a partnership concern) is carrying on the industrial activity in a non-conforming area and therefore the industry shall have to beshifted or closed down. There are several industries who carry on their activities in non-conforming areas, since they are required to shift their industries or close the same, Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred as DDA for short) came out with a scheme to provide them alternative industrial plats, so that the industries could beshifted. In the year 1976 the Delhi Development Authority announced that the last opportunity was being given to the industries functioning in the non conforming area or in the areas which are under acquisition, to obtain land in the conform p=3 ing industrial areas developed by Delhi Development Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan. The announcement said that it was the final opportunity for the industries and required the industrialists to file applications in the prescribed form. The initial announcement required the applicants to pay the stipulated earnest money which varied from Rs.250.00 to Rs.1,000.00 depending upon the extent of the plot sought for. The announcement also stated that the price of the land to be allotted will have to be paid in 4 quarterly instalments. The last date for the application was 31.3.1976. Thereafter there was another announce ment staling that the Delhi Development Authority was developing about 700 hectares of land and constructing industrial space/sheds in 4 industrial areas. It was stated that non conforming industrial units situate in Delhi may like to apply for allotment of plots in industrial scheme nearest to their present locations. The announcement also gave the likely number of plots and their extent in different areas. The mode of payment was stated separately for developed plots and for built up space or sheds in respect of an application for developed plots, 30% of the total premium of the plot has to be paid by 31.10.1976. Another 30% had to be paid at the time of handing over the plot and the balance was payable when the development is completed. The rates to be charged for different types of (developed plots were also specified in the announcement as follows: (a) For a plot, size of which does not exceed 500 Sq. Mtrs. the rate was Rs.200.00 perSq.Mtr.; (b) In respect of the plots measuring more than 500 Sq. Mtrs. upto 1000 Sq. Mtrs., rate was Rs.l80'.00 per Sq. Mtr.; (c) Regarding the plots measuring 1000 to 2000 Sq. Mtrs. the rate was Rs.l60.00 per Sq. Mtr. According to the petitioner he applied for an industrial plot measuring 400 Sq. Mtrs. and deposited an earnest money of Rs.500.00 as per the first announcement. Subsequently, in view of the second announcement made in the month of September, 1976 the petitioner paid 30% of the premium. The time for making the deposit of this 30% had been extended upto 31.12.1976. According to the petitioner, he has been carrying on the industry at No.l22-B, Nirankari Colony, Delhi which is a non-conforming area. Petitioner had deposited Rs.24,000.00 being the 30% of the price as per the second notification referred above. Petitioner also submitted all the requisite documents in support of his claim. Petitioner also has pointed out that in the year 1980 the Delhi Development Authority informed the Multi Small Scale Industries Association that the land would be allotted to the applicants, who had applied in the year 1976 and had made the payment of 30% of the premium in addition to' the earnest money, subject to the condition that the units were functioning in the non-conforming areas (vide ANNEXURE 'C'). There was another letter dated 18.8.1980 stating that the Delhi Development Authority had decided to allot the industrial plots to nearly' 300applicants whohaddeposited30%ofthepremium. On 5.11.1980the petitioner was asked to furnish a legible photostat copy of MCD license pertaining to the unit and location. According to the petitioner, this requirement of the municipal license was unnecessary because no such requirement was found in the application form. However, he asserts that he had applied for the license on 1.4.1976. He had also deposited the license fee but the license was issued only during 1982-83 under the ad hoc policy. In the year 1983 the petitioner submitted the copy of p=09 the license when he received the license from the MCD. The petitioner also submitted a letter/certificate dated 4.11.1988 issued by MCD. The certificate stated that the petitioner had been granted a license for the trade of dyeing with 7 HPM under the ad hoc licensing policy at Rs.l22-B, Nirankari Colony, Delhi and that the license has been renewed upto 31.3.1989.