Devinder Gupta ( 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. 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. ( 4 ) IN response to the show cause notice, respondent No. 2 filed its reply dated27. 4. 1992 on the affidavit of Shri A. Srivastava, Director of Delhi Developmentauthority, in which it was admitted that though the petitioner deposited the sumof Rs. 82926. 00 in the year 1987 but possession was not delivered to him since he wasnot entitled to it. Petitioners case that it had its industrial unit/warehouse on a plotof land measuring 2161 sq. yards at Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Rohtakroad was not disputed. It was also not disputed that the petitioner was allotted theplot in question. A specific stand was taken that case of the petitioner was one oflarge number of 40 cases of Delhi Steel Dealers Association out of which 20 had paidfull premium and had been delivered possession of the plots allotted to them butfor the remaining 20 or 22 cases it was decided that their cases be put up before Landallotment Advisory Committee (for short the Committee) for decision. Thecommittee took a decision that in the first instance all these cases be referred to thedirector of Industries, Delhi Administration for checking the old sites which wereoccupied by the said industrial units/warehouse of Delhi State Dealers Associationto ascertain whether or not the said industrial units/warehouses were still functioning at the old sites. About 20 units had taken up the matter to Courts of law butpetitioner did not take out any legal proceedings. After receipt of the report ofdirector of Industries, decision was taken and 22 cases were cleared. Thecommittee was of the opinion that three cases, including that of the petitionerwhich had not been referred to Director of Industries, Delhi Administration earlier,be now sent to Director of Industries which was accordingly done but till date noreport had been received from the Director of Industries. ( 5 ) IN view of this stand taken by the respondents in their reply, rule was issuedon 17. 7. 1992 and the interim stay was confirmed. ( 5 ) IN view of this stand taken by the respondents in their reply, rule was issuedon 17. 7. 1992 and the interim stay was confirmed. ( 6 ) IN the counter dated 3. 11. 1993 on the affidavit of Shri Ashok K. Acharya,director of D. D. A. filed after rule was issued, it has been stated by respondents thaton 3. 2. 1993 the Committee had decided to drop the petitioner s case becausedirector of Industries had reported about the non-existence of petitioner s ware-house at the old site and thus irrespective of the fact that the petitioner had beenallotted the plot in question and also paid the premium including 20% extrapremium and restoration charges, it was not entitled to possession of the plot inquestion. ( 7 ) SINCE decision of the Committee was taken on 3. 2. 1993, during the pendency of the writ petition, the same is also under challenge now by the petitioneron number of counts. ( 8 ) WHEN the matter was taken up today, none appeared on behalf of therespondents. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner who has also takenme through the affidavits exchanged as also various documents on record. ( 9 ) ACTION of respondents is not delivering possession is under challenged onthe ground that in pursuance to the policy decision taken by the respondent underwhich the industrial units/warehouses existing in small and densely populatednon-conforming areas had to be shifted to conforming areas, the petitioner hadmade an application for allotment of an industrial plot and was duly allotted a plotof land in Okhla Industrial Area. On 12. 7. 1991 a communication was received fromthe Joint Director, DDA, addressed to the petitioner that the matter was underconsideration and the final decision would be intimated in due course. Thepetitioner also surrendered possession in the year 1979 under the hope andexpectation that the petitioner would be put in possession of the allotted plot. Nowafter a period of more than 20 years, the act of respondents in denying possessionof the plot of land on the ground that the petitioners warehouse is not now inexistence at the old site is not only unjustified but also arbitrary since in a numberof cases where possession had not been surrendered, not only allotment was madebut also possession of new plots was handed over. The petitioner had compliedwith the requirements of the terms of the letter of allotment by making paymentand vacating/surrendering the possession within the non-conforming area. Thus,the respondents deserve to be directed to hand over the possession of the allottedplot to the petitioner. ( 10 ) ANNEXURE R-1 is the letter of allotment through which the petitioner wasinformed about the allotment of plot on certain conditions. One of the conditionswas the surrendering of possession of the old site in non-conforming location,which reads: "with reference to your application for allotment of an industrial plot, I amdirected to inform you that it has been decided to allot you the above plotmeasuring 1210 sq. yds. approximately on perpetual lease-hold basis forshifting of your industry/warehouse from the present non-conforming location. The allotment is on the specific condition that you will, within 12 monthsfrom the date of possession of the plot stop the use of the present premises 31 /3b, Anand Parbat Indl. Area, (ii) 459/60, Khari Baoli, Delhi-6 for the purposeof warehouse and for any manufacturing process or running of any industrywhatsoever nor will you let out or sub-let the so vacated premises to be usedfor an industrial purpose or any other purpose in contravention of theprovisions of the Master Plan for Delhi or the Zonal Development Plan of thearea. " ( 11 ) ANNEXURE A is a Certificate by the Ramjas Foundation certifying that thepetitioner was a lessee of the Foundation of land measuring 2161 sq. yds. at Anandparbat Estate, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi which was vacated on 21. 4. 1979. Inalmost all the representations addressed by the petitioner to the respondents thereis reiteration of the fact by the petitioner that it had already surrendered possessionof the industrial unit/warehouse in non-conforming area in the year 1979 and thathe be put in possession of the allotted plot of land in Okhla Industrial area. Thereis no denial by the respondents to this averment either in the counter affidavit filedon 27/04/1992 or in the affidavit dated 3. 11. 1993 or in any of the communications addressed to the petitioner. ( 12 ) ANNEXURE E is a communication dated 17. 9. 1987 from deputy Director (Industries) of D. D. A. to the petitioner enclosing therewith an attested copy ofdemand letter dated 11. 10. 1979, which includes premium of the plot in question atthe rate of Rs. 58. 00 per sq. yd. ( 12 ) ANNEXURE E is a communication dated 17. 9. 1987 from deputy Director (Industries) of D. D. A. to the petitioner enclosing therewith an attested copy ofdemand letter dated 11. 10. 1979, which includes premium of the plot in question atthe rate of Rs. 58. 00 per sq. yd. , restoration fee at the rate of Re. 1. 00 per sq. yd. and20% of the total premium amounting to Rs. 14,036. 00 after deducting a sum of Rs. 2,100. 00 the premium already paid. The petitioner was required to pay Rs. 82,926. 00. This amount, the petitioner deposited vide receipt-cum-challan on 2 6/09/1987. This amount has been retained by respondent No. 2 and notreturned till date to the petitioner. ( 13 ) RESPONDENTS case in the counter affidavits has been that the demand wasraised on 11. 10. 1979 when the petitioner was called upon to make the payment butthe petitioner deposited this amount only after a lapse of almost eight years. Thecase of the petitioner along with others was sent to the Committee who took adecision that in the first instance the matter should be referred to Director ofindustries for checking the old sites which were occupied by the industrial units/warehouses as to whether the said industrial units/warehouses were functioningat the old site. Since it was found that the petitioners warehouse was non-existentat the old site, the petitioner was not entitled to allotment of plot. This stand ofrespondents is totally understandable. In fact the basic question that was requiredto be seen, when the matter was referred to Director of Industries, was as towhether the possession of the industrial unit/warehouse in the non-conformingarea had or had not surrendered which also was one of the conditions in the letterof allotment. Since it has been the case of the petitioner throughout that he hadalready surrendered the site in 1979 after the allotment had been made, there wasno question of petitioner continuing any industrial activities at the old site. Since it has been the case of the petitioner throughout that he hadalready surrendered the site in 1979 after the allotment had been made, there wasno question of petitioner continuing any industrial activities at the old site. In casethe petitioner acted on the policy announced by respondent No. 2 and changed hisposition to its detriment by surrendering possession of the earlier plot in the year1979 and made payment in the year 1987, in pursuance to a demand notice,respondent No. 2 now cannot be heard to say that since in the year 1992-93 thepetitioner was not functioning at the old site, therefore, the petitioner was notentitled to possession of the allotted plot. In case the respondent No. 2 had to verifythe fact of petitioners functioning at the old site, it had to be with reference to thepoint of time either when the allotment was made, namely, in the year 1970 orimmediately thereafter. Only in case the petitioner was having his warehouse inthe year 1970 or was having an industrial unit/warehouse in a non-conformingarea that he would have been entitled to participate in the auction and nototherwise. In case, in pursuance to the condition which was imposed by respondents in the letter of allotment, the petitioner ceased to carry on any activity at theold site after allotment of the new plot of land in Okhla Industrial Area, thepetitioner cannot be penalised or deprived of allotment on the ground that thepetitioner now after a lapse of 23-24 years was not having any industrial unit/warehouse at the old site. Entitlement to the allotment of plot had to be at the timeof participation inauction and not 24 years thereafter, when the respondents havealready realised the premium etc. This action of the respondent in not deliveringpossession is wholly unjusticiable. In fact after the respondents had accepted the amount of the plot allotted in Okhla Industrial Area, there is no reason for notputting the petitioner in possession of the said plot. The decision taken vide itemno. 6 in the minutes of the 10th meeting of the Committee is neither reasonable norrational. ( 14 ) AS noticed above, the enquiry which ought to have been made waswhether or not the petitioner was functioning or carrying on any industrial activityat the old site in non-conforming area at the time of allotment of plot of land andnot whether still it was in existence now. ( 14 ) AS noticed above, the enquiry which ought to have been made waswhether or not the petitioner was functioning or carrying on any industrial activityat the old site in non-conforming area at the time of allotment of plot of land andnot whether still it was in existence now. In this view of the matter, respondentsare not justified in depriving the petitioner of the possession of the allotted plot inquestion. THE writ petition accordingly deserves to be allowed. IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed tohand over and deliver peaceful and vacant possession of plot of land No. 187, Blocka in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi measuring 1210 sq. yards to thepetitioner within a period of three months from the receipt of this order. IN the circumstances of this case I make no order as to costs.