K. Shivashankar Bhat ( 1 ) THE petitioner has approached this Court inview of the inaction of the respondent in delivering possession of the plot allottedto the petitioner under the following circumstances: ( 2 ) THE petitioner is manufacturer of wooden cabinets used for sewingmachines and television sets. He has been carrying on his activity in premisesbearing Municipal No. 525/16 and 508 situate at Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhiand Circular Road, Shahdara. Another premises also was used by the petitionerbeing 3-131, Chhota Bazar, Shahdara. These premises are situate in non-conform-ing area. The land on which these premises were put up were acquired by thegovernment under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the award cameto be passed in November, 1968. Since persons like the petitioner were deprivedof the facility to run their business or industry, a scheme was formulated to allotalternative sites to the persons who were deprived of their existing premises. On16. 12. 1968 the petitioner made a representation for the allotment of alternative plot. In the meanwhile the petitioner also requested not to evict him from the present prerinises. On 7. 3. 1969 the petitioner was asked to apply for the plots in the prescribed form. In January 1970 the petitioner s application was received by therespondent seeking allotment of an industrial plot. Petitioner also deposited a sumof Rs. 2,500. 00 alongwith the application. On 12. 5. 1970 (Annexure E) the respondentrequested the Directorate of Industries to assess the petitioner s land requirements. On 16. 11. 1971 an order came to be made as per Annexure F allotting plot No. 142, block No. c in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 1. This allotment was on the specificcondition that the petitioner would, within 2 months from the date of possessionof the plot, stop the use of the premises and all the three premises were referred inthe allotment letter. The petitioner was also asked not to let out or sublet thevacated premises. The petitioner was also asked to deposit by 10. 5. 1972 theamounts detailed in the said letter of allotment. The total premium of the plot Rs. 40. 00 per Sq. Yard was Rs. 1,93,600. 00. The petitioner was asked to pay 25% of thetotal premium by 10. 5. 1972 after giving due credit to the amount already depos- Iited. The balance was Rs. 45,900. 00 to be deposited by 10. 5. 1972. The total premium of the plot Rs. 40. 00 per Sq. Yard was Rs. 1,93,600. 00. The petitioner was asked to pay 25% of thetotal premium by 10. 5. 1972 after giving due credit to the amount already depos- Iited. The balance was Rs. 45,900. 00 to be deposited by 10. 5. 1972. Another 25% of ;the total premium was payable on demand. The letter also stated that the balance 50% of the premium would be payable on demand when electricity and watersupply are made available in the scheme. However, in case the petitioner wantedthe possession immediately it was stated that the same can be handed over onpayment of the full premium of the plot + Rs. 10. 00 on account of the cost ofpreparation of the lease deed and the site plan etc. The petitioner made the following payments as demanded and it is clear that by January 1975 he had paid ,50% qf the premium. ( 3 ) ON 18. 1. 1975 the petitioner made a representation (Annexure G ). Thepetitioner pointed out that the valuation of the plot was on a higher side and the various representations made by the petitioner were not considered and petitionerrequested the Vice Chairman of the respondent for personal intervention forrefunding the excess collection charges and requested that the old rates may becharged. The letter also refers to the fact that the petitioner had made payment ofabout 50% of the premium. On 14. 3. 1975 the petitioner was informed that theallotment of the Industrial plot was restored. However, the representation of thepetitioner dated 18. 1. 1975 was "under decision". Possession was still not handedover to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner proceeded to make his representation. In a letter dated 5. 10. 1977 (Annexure 1) the petitioner pointed out that theconcerned file had to be collected expeditiously from the CBI by the respondent. The petitioner gave summary of the petitioner s case regarding the allotment of theplot. The petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner s amount with therespondent was Rs. 67,340. 00 which was blocked since September 1973 and that theinterest alone on the said amount will be Rs. 61,800. 00. The petitioner seems to haverepeated his requests even thereafter for handing over possession of the plot. ( 4 ) ON 1. 9. The petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner s amount with therespondent was Rs. 67,340. 00 which was blocked since September 1973 and that theinterest alone on the said amount will be Rs. 61,800. 00. The petitioner seems to haverepeated his requests even thereafter for handing over possession of the plot. ( 4 ) ON 1. 9. 1979 the petitioner was told that the main file of the plot has been sentto the police in connection with some other case and that necessary action wouldbe taken after receiving the file and that the plot still continues to stand in the nameof the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not still given the possession of the plota notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner as per Annexure m . Learnedcounsel for the petitioner pointed out in this notice that petitioner had already paida sum of Rs. 67,340. 00 and the balance price may be adjusted against the interestaccrued on the aforesaid amount since the year 1975 and that if action is not takento hand over possession of the plot petitioner would resort to appropriate legalproceedings. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition. ( 5 ) THE facts have been stated by me in great detail which speak for themselves. The right of the petitioner to receive the plot is not in dispute. There is also nodispute that the petitioner has complied with the terms of the allotment. ( 6 ) ON 29. 10. 1981 notice was issued by this Court to the respondent to showcause as to why the petitioner should not be admitted. The matter was adjournedon several occasions thereafter. Subsequently Rule was issued. On 14. 2. 1992 thelearned Counsel for the respondent sought a short adjournment so that necessarysteps may be taken and the counter affidavit may be filed. There is a reference tothe file being with the CBI. On 16. 3. 1992 it was stated on behalf of the respondentthat the file has now been traced and a photo copy of the same has been suppliedto the learned Counsel for the respondent by the CBI, ( 7 ) THEREFORE, he sought time to file the counter affidavit. The Court grantedtime to file the counter. The matter stood adjourned from time to time againthereafter. So far no counter is filed to the writ petition. The Court grantedtime to file the counter. The matter stood adjourned from time to time againthereafter. So far no counter is filed to the writ petition. In the meanwhile thepetitioner filed C. M. 1476/1992 to point out that the plot stood in the name of thepetitioner and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had issued notices demandingproperty taxes for several years. This also indicates that the Municipal Corporationwas intimated by the respondent that the plot was assigned to the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE following facts are undisputed:- (I) The petitioner has been carrying on his business/industrial activity in a non-conforming area. The land wherein the activity aforesaid wasbeing carried on was acquired by the Government. (ii) The petitioner was allotted with a site beating plot No. 142, Block cin Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, as early as November, 1971. (iii) The petitioner throughout was ready and willing to comply with theterms of the allotment and make the payment promptly. But the plotwas not handed over to the petitioner obviously because the relevantfile was with the CBI in connection with the matter not connected withthe allotment of the site in favour of the petitioner. The file has now been received. At any rate the photo copy of the file has been received,. (iv) There is no impediment for completing the allotment process byhanding over possession to the petitioner. (v) The learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that thepetitioner will be paying the balance amount out of the amountpayable as stated in the allotment letter dated 16. 11. 1971 i. e. to say thepetitioner is willing to pay the total premium of Rs. 1,93,600. 00 out ofwhich about 50% has already been paid. ( 9 ) SINCE the petitioner is fully entitled to the aforesaid plot of land and therespondent has withheld the completion of the transaction without assigning anyreason I am of the view that the inaction of the respondent is arbitrary. Consequently, the respondent is directed to handover possession of the aforesaid plotno. 142, Block c , Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi to the petitionersubject to the petitioner fulfilling the other terms of the allotment as stated in theallotment letter dated 16. 11. 1971. Consequently, the respondent is directed to handover possession of the aforesaid plotno. 142, Block c , Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi to the petitionersubject to the petitioner fulfilling the other terms of the allotment as stated in theallotment letter dated 16. 11. 1971. It is made clear that the petitioner is not liable topay any interest to the respondent because the delay, if any, is on the part of therespondents and the petitioner has already made a substantial payment. Therespondent is directed to comply with this order within 4 weeks from today. Acertified copy of the order may be obtained by the petitioner and sent to therespondent from which the four weeks would commence to operate. The petitioneris entitled to the costs computed at Rs. 3,500. 00.