Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 876 (DEL)

Engineering Works v. Govt of NCT. of Delhi

2008-09-11

G.S.SISTANI

body2008
Judgment G.S. Sistani, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking a writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the letter dated 10.07.2002 issued by the respondents and by virtue of which the allotment to the petitioner of Plot No.8, Pocket F, Sector 4, Bawana Industrial Complex, was cancelled. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to mutate the said Plot No.8, Pocket F, Sector 4, Bawana Industrial Complex, in the name of petitioner No.2. 2. The brief facts that have led to filing of the present petition may first be noticed. The petitioner No.1 (Ms Engineering Works) is a proprietorship firm of late Shri Suraj Singh and petitioner No.2 is the widow of late Shri Suraj Singh. Pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court the respondents framed a scheme for relocation of industries from residential/non-conforming areas to newer industrial estates. Since the petitioners were also operating in a non-conforming area, the husband of petitioner No.2 approached to the respondent No.2 (Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, "DS/DC") and filed an application bearing No. 38782, dated 31.12.1996 for allotment of an alternate industrial plot. Alongwith this application the husband of petitioner No.2 submitted the requisite documents and also deposited a sum of Rs. 90,000/-, as earnest money which amount was paid through the Delhi State Cooperative Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the years 1996 to 1998, the petitioners did not receive any information from the respondents with regard to the status of the above said application. On 26.05.1998, the husband of petitioner No.2 died. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a letter dated 23.10.2000 was received by petitioner No.2 from the respondents. The petitioners were informed that a draw of lacs was held on 12.10.2000 and petitioner No.1 was found successful for allotment of an alternate industrial plot measuring 200 sq. meters, bearing No.8, Sector 4, Pocket F, Bawana Industrial Complex (hereinafter referred to as, "the plot"). The tentative cost of the plot was estimated as Rs. 4,200/- per sq. meters and accordingly, the cost of the plot allotted to the petitioner was Rs. 8,40,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequently, petitioner No.2 received information that the cost of the plot for which the defendants were demanding Rs. The tentative cost of the plot was estimated as Rs. 4,200/- per sq. meters and accordingly, the cost of the plot allotted to the petitioner was Rs. 8,40,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequently, petitioner No.2 received information that the cost of the plot for which the defendants were demanding Rs. 4,200/- per square meters was only Rs.• 3,000/- per square meters, earlier. The increased cost of the plot had been challenged by the association and other allottees before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that meanwhile, petitioner No.2 addressed a representation dated 22.01.2001 to respondent No.2, wherein it was stated that petitioner No.2 was willing to deposit the amount, but, on account of the fact that the compensation awarded by the court (with respect to agricultural lands that had been acquired by the Government) had yet not been received by the petitioners and further because of untimely death of her husband, petitioner No.2 was unable to arrange the requisite amount. But petitioner No.2 undertook to deposit the amount with interest. Learned counsel further submits that inspite of not. having received any compensation, petitioner No.2 deposited a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- vide Challan No. 17520, dated 31.03.2001 towards the cost of the plot. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 addressed another communication dated 10.04.2001 to the respondents and requested them to extend the time for depositing the money, on account of the fact that she had not received her due compensation, and further for the reasons that the petitioner No.2 could also not apply for loan from the DFC as she did not possess the requisite mutation papers and without which the loan was not being approved. The counsel for the petitioners also submitter that the request made in communication dated 10.04.2001 has not been rejected by the respondents. Furthermore, vide communication dated 10.05.2001, respondent No.2 called upon petitioner No.2 to submit various documents including death certificate of her husband, affidavits from all the beneficiaries, declaration from legal heirs and relinquishment deed duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. According to the petitioner No. 2 all the above documents were submitted by her vide letter dated 29.06.2001. 5. Furthermore, vide communication dated 10.05.2001, respondent No.2 called upon petitioner No.2 to submit various documents including death certificate of her husband, affidavits from all the beneficiaries, declaration from legal heirs and relinquishment deed duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. According to the petitioner No. 2 all the above documents were submitted by her vide letter dated 29.06.2001. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 16.10.2001 another communication was received by petitioner No. 2 from the respondents stating that her case for change of ownership/proprietorship of the firm could not be processed due to discrepancy in the affidavits that had been filed by the legal heirs of late Shri Suraj Singh. Subsequently vide letter dated 05.11.2001 the petitioners replied to the respondents and completed all the formalities and also made a request for mutation of the firm in the name of petitioner No.2. It was also brought to the notice of the respondents that petitioner No.2 would pay the balance amount together with the interest. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 20.04.2002, the petitioner received a letter dated 08.04.2002 from the respondents and by virtue of which the petitioners were required to deposit balance 50% cost of the plot latest by 20.04.2002 and to take the possession of the plot. Learned counsel submits that the conditions as per die said letter could not have been complied with in view of the fact that it was posted by the respondents on 16.04.2002 and received by them on 20.04.2002 which was also the last due date for deposit of the amount. Thereafter, on 04.07.2002 the petitioners received another letter dated 27.06.2002 from the respondents by which petitioner was informed that on the basis of the documents submitted, the possession papers are ready and in case the papers are not collected within 20 days, the allotment shall be treated as cancelled. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of this letter dated 27.06.2002 the petitioners had a reason to believe that they had been granted further time to deposit the money, and thus the petitioner met the officials of the respondents on 05.07.2002, 07.07.2002 and 12.07.2002 and further the petitioner was asked to attend the office of the respondents on 19.07.2002. However, the petitioner to their utter surprise, received a letter dated 10.07.2002 from the respondents whereby the allotment of the above said plot made in the name of petitioner No.1, had been cancelled. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the cancellation of the allotment of the said, plot was without any application of mind and also against the principles of natural justice and equity. Learned counsel submits that though various financial institutions were providing loan for the cost of the plot, however because of the fact that petitioner No. 2 did not process the mutation papers (and which application was pending with the respondents), the petitioners could not avail of toe loan facility. It is also urged before this Court that on the one hand, the petitioners request for extension of the time for deposit of money was pending with the respondents and the latter had asked them to collect the possession letter and on the other hand the petitioner could not avail of the loan as the respondents were not clearing the mutation papers of the petitioners. 8. Contrary to all the averments of the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this writ petition primarily on the ground that the communication dated 10.07.2002 sent by the respondents to the petitioners, amply demonstrates the reasons for the cancellation of the allotment of the plot. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the communication dated 13.10.2000 sent to the petitioners, gave a clear break up of the installments to be paid towards the cost of the plot and that again on 23.10.2000 the petitioners were called upon to pay the amount within the stipulated time period. Learned counsel submits that as per the various communications sent to the petitioner as well as information through press advertisements, the petitioner was to deposit fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the plot to the respondents by 31.03.2001. Further extension in time was granted to the defaulters and who were required to make the payment up till 01.04.2002. Counsel for the respondents submits that despite the extension granted, the petitioners failed to make the payment and thus the respondents were well within their rights to cancel the allotment of the plot. 9. Further extension in time was granted to the defaulters and who were required to make the payment up till 01.04.2002. Counsel for the respondents submits that despite the extension granted, the petitioners failed to make the payment and thus the respondents were well within their rights to cancel the allotment of the plot. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that regard be had to the communication dated 08.04.2002 addressed by the respondents to the petitioners and which expressly stated that, "those allotees who have not deposited 50% cost of the plot by 31st March, 2001 (including short fall of 5% of the cost of plot and adjustment towards interest payable on count of EMD) and further could not deposit the 5% short fall on account of difference of EMD with interest @ 18% w.e.j: 01.04.2001 upto 01.04.2002, are not eligible for making payment." The counsel argued that no extension has been granted by the respondents to any of the allottees who did not make fifty percent (50%) of the payment by 31.03.2001. Learned counsel further submits that similar matters have been dismissed by this Court and the Division Bench has also upheld the said orders. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the judgment of the Division Bench is not applicable to the facts of this case as the deadline of 31.03.2001 was fixed in matters where petitioners had approached this Court and had challenged the increase in cost of the plot. It was strongly urged before this Court by the counsel for the petitioners, that the facts of the present case are distinct and different Counsel for the petitioner further submits that out of Rs. 4,20,000/- which were to be deposited, petitioner No.2 had deposited a substantial amount of the same being Rs. 3,30,000/-, in spite of the reasons that the husband of the petitioner No.2 had died and they were facing financial constraints. Further that the land of petitioner No.2 had been acquired by the government and they had yet net received any compensation. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 14.8.2002 passed by this Court by virtue of which petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs. 3.0 lacs together with interest @ 18%. Further that the land of petitioner No.2 had been acquired by the government and they had yet net received any compensation. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 14.8.2002 passed by this Court by virtue of which petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs. 3.0 lacs together with interest @ 18%. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that as of now the entire balance amount along with the interest has already been paid to the respondents. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, who have taken me through the records of this case. In my considered view, there is no dispute to the fact that the husband of petitioner No.2 had deposited a sum of Rs. 90,000/- alongwith his application dated 31.12.1996 to respondent No.2, DSIDC, for allotment of an alternate industrial plot. Unfortunately, the husband of petitioner No.2, who was the sole bread winner of the family, died in the year 1998. As per the demand letter sent by the respondents to the petitioners, the latter were required to pay 50% of the revised estimated cost of the plot @ Rs. 4,200/- per sq. mtr. whereas, petitioner No.2 deposited only a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- within the stipulated time period and sought an extension of time for paying the balance amount. 12. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the balance payment could not be deposited as it was beyond the control of the petitioner and on account of delay in mutation of the plot in favour of the LR of the deceased husband of the petitioner. As per the petitioner balance amount could not be deposited on account of the untimely death of the husband of the petitioner who as the sole bread winner of the family. Despite an application for mutation pending before the respondent, mutation was not effected and on account of lack of mutation loan was not sanctioned by DFC. Compensation was not paid by the Government for the lands acquired by them. 13. During the pendency of this writ petition, not only have the respondents mutated the plot in favour of petitioner No.2; but the petitioners have also stated to have paid the entire amount alongwith the interest to the respondents, and which amount has been accepted by the respondents. 13. During the pendency of this writ petition, not only have the respondents mutated the plot in favour of petitioner No.2; but the petitioners have also stated to have paid the entire amount alongwith the interest to the respondents, and which amount has been accepted by the respondents. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the respondent as the entire amount alongwith the interest has been paid by the petitioners to the respondents. Inspite of the payment having been made, petitioner No.2 has not been able to derive the benefit of the plot as the possession of the plot is still with the respondents. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case should not be equated with other matters in view of the fact that the petitioner was prevented for cogent reasons for not making the payment on time. In this case the petitioners had applied to the respondents far mutation of the plot in the name of the legal heirs of the deceased, but which application was kept pending by the respondents. Since the mutation was not effected by the respondents, petitioner could not arrange for the loan as mutation was a precondition imposed by the financial institutions for grant of loan. In view of the peculiar facts of this case, where petitioners faced financial constraints because of the fact that the sole bread winner of the family, the husband of petitioner No.2, died in. the year 1998; that petitioner No.2 was not given timely compensation when her agricultural lands were acquired by the government; that petitioner No.2 could not avail of the loan facilities as the application for mutation of the plot in her name was pending before the respondents and was not dealt with as late as during the pendency of the writ petit on 24.07.2002 and the entire amount stands paid during the pendency of the writ petition, this writ petition is allowed. 14. Counsel for the respondent submit that the petitioner should complete all the formalities and make balance payment if any. Accordingly, in case, any payment still has to be made along with the interest, the same shall be made by the petitioners towards plot No.8, (measuring 200 sq. meters) Pocket F, Sector 4, Bawana Industrial Complex, the possession of this plot be handed over to petitioner No.2 within eight weeks from today. Accordingly, in case, any payment still has to be made along with the interest, the same shall be made by the petitioners towards plot No.8, (measuring 200 sq. meters) Pocket F, Sector 4, Bawana Industrial Complex, the possession of this plot be handed over to petitioner No.2 within eight weeks from today. In case any other formalities are to be completed by petitioner No.2, the respondents shall inform the petitioner about the same. 15. Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.