DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. AMBITIOUS ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order ofthe learned Single Judge dated 27/05/1994.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-Delhi Development Authority, the appellant before us, issued an advertisement on February 8,1976 with a view to providing an opportunity to industrialiststo shift their industries functioning in the non-conforming areas or the areas whichwere under acquisition for various public purposes to conforming areas. Theadvertisement declared that it was the last opportunity for the industrialists toapply for land in the conforming areas which had been developed by the DelhiDevelopmnent Authority in different localities of Delhi according to the provisionsof the Master Plan. The applicants were advised to apply in the prescribed form.Pursuant to the advertisement, about 15,000 applicants applied for the plots. As thenumber of applications were large, it was decided by the appellant that anapplicant should deposit 30% of the " premium amount" of the land as a conditionprecedent for the Authority to consider his application. By this process theappellant was able to weed out sizable number of applicants. Out of 15,000applicants only 416 applicants deposited the requisite amount. Some applicantsafter depositing the amount withdrew the same. Ultimately 299 applicants wereleft in the field, out of which 184 applicants were allotted plots as they were foundto be possessed of valid municipal licences from the M.C.D. on the date of theapplication and were also found to have industries in non-conforming areas. Inrespect of the remaining 115 applicants, the matter was referred to a Committee forascertaining their eligibility for allotment of the industrial plots. The committeewent into the matter and found that out of these 115 applicants 60 were eligible forallotment of alternative plots. Case of 55 applicants was thus rejected on theground, inter-alia,that they did not have the municipal licences on the date of theirmaking the application for allotment of plots.

(3.) The learned Single Judge before whom the matter came up in the writpetitions came to the conclusion that the industrial plots were proposed to beallotted as per the scheme announced in the year 1976 and the purpose of thescheme was to provide alternative plots to the industrialists who could notcontinue to function in non-conforming areas. According to him the scheme didnot impose any condition on the applicants requiring them to be possessed ofmunicipal licences for their undertakings on the date of the making the applicationsto the appellant.