PRUSHOTTAM TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has sought directions against respondent No.2 for handing over vacant and peaceful possession of plot No. A-187, OkhlaIndustrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.

(2.) The background in which this writ petition came to be filed is that thepetitioner was having a plot of land measuring 2161 sq. yards in Anand ParbatIndustrial Area, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the'earlier plot ) which belonged to Ramjas Foundation. "The petitioner was having itsindustrial unit/warehouse. In the year 1965, the respondents announced a policyof shifting of industrial units/warehouses from non-conforming areas to conforming areas. In accordance with the policy, the petitioner applied and participated ina draw of lots held on 30/03/1970 and 14/09/1970. The petitionerwas allotted Plot No. A-187, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as the 'plot in question'). On 21.4.1979 the petitioner surrendered thepossession of the earlier plot. However, he did not deposit the premium of the plotallotted to him in Okhla Industrial Area but took up the matter with respondent No.2 for reduction in the amount of premium by sending repeated representations.Due to the non-payment of the .premium amount, the allotment was cancelled, buton petitioner's representation, the Vice Chairman of respondent No. 2 made anorder of restoring the allotment of the same plot in Okhla Industrial Area to thepetitioner on levying a penalty of 20% on the total premium along with restorationcharges @ Re.1.00 per sq. yard. Thus, the demand of premium, penalty andrestoration charges amounting to Rs. 82,926.00, according to the petitioner, wasduly paid by him on 5.10.1987. Simultaneously the petitioner prayed for being putin possession of the allotted plot. It is the petitioners' case now that despiterepeated requests possession has not been delivered. Reference has been made toa number of representations made from time to time in this behalf and a reply whichwas received on 12.7.1991 Stating that the matter was under consideration and finaldecision would be intimated in due course. Since neither intimation was receivednor was possession given, he had no option but to prefer this writ petition on20.1.1992.

(3.) On 23.1.1992, while issuing show cause notice, an ad-interim order wasmade directing respondent No. 2 not to allot the plot in question to any person otherthan the petitioner.