Delhi High Court
Chopra Dyeing Industries vs Delhi Development Authority on 27 May, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994IIIAD(DELHI)457, AIR1995DELHI115, 54(1994)DLT701, 1994(30)DRJ19, AIR 1995 DELHI 115, (1994) 30 DRJ 19 (1994) 54 DLT 701, (1994) 54 DLT 701
JUDGMENT K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.
(1) Several writ petitions were posted together and all of them were heard. The general question arising in all these writ petitions is decided in this writ petition and thereafter the principles are applied to the facts of each case separately.
(2) The petitioner, M/s.Chopra Dyeing Industries is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for allotment of a plot in the Mangolpuri Industrial Area. Phase I & II.
(3) According to the petitioner (for the sake of convenience I am referring the petitioner as 'he' though the petitioner is a partnership concern) is carrying on the industrial activity in a non-conforming area and therefore the industry shall have to be shifted or closed down. There are several industries who carry on their activities in non-conforming areas, since they are required to shift their industries or close the same, Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred as Dda for short) came out with a scheme to provide them alternative industrial plats, so that the industries could be shifted. In the year 1976 the Delhi Development Authority announced that the last opportunity was being given to the industries functioning in the non conforming area or in the areas which are under acquisition, to obtain land in the conform p=3 ing industrial areas developed by Delhi Development Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan. The announcement said that it was the final opportunity for the industries and required the industrialists to file applications in the prescribed form. The initial announcement required the applicants to pay the stipulated earnest money which varied from Rs.250.00 to Rs.1,000.00 depending upon the extent of the plot sought for. The announcement also stated that the price of the land to be allotted will have to be paid in 4 quarterly Installments. The last date for the application was 31.3.1976. Thereafter there was another announce ment staling that the Delhi Development Authority was developing about 700 hectares of land and constructing industrial space/sheds in 4 industrial areas. It was stated that non conforming industrial units situate in Delhi may like to apply for allotment of plots in industrial scheme nearest to their present locations. The announcement also gave the likely number of plots and their extent in different areas. The mode of payment was stated separately for developed plots and for built up space or sheds in respect of an application for developed plots, 30% of the total premium of the plot has to be paid by 31.10.1976. Another 30% had to be paid at the time of handing over the plot and the balance was payable when the development is completed. The rates to be charged for different types of (developed plots were also specified in the announcement as follows: (a) For a plot, size of which does not exceed 500 Sq. Mtrs. the rate was Rs.200.00 perSq.Mtr.; (b) In respect of the plots measuring more than 500 Sq. Mtrs. up to 1000 Sq. Mtrs., rate was Rs.l80'.00 per Sq. Mtr.; (c) Regarding the plots measuring 1000 to 2000 Sq. Mtrs. the rate was Rs.l60.00 per Sq. Mtr. According to the petitioner he applied for an industrial plot measuring 400 Sq. Mtrs. and deposited an earnest money of Rs.500.00 as per the first announcement. Subsequently, in view of the second announcement made in the month of September, 1976 the petitioner paid 30% of the premium. The time for making the deposit of this 30% had been extended up to 31.12.1976. According to the petitioner, he has been carrying on the industry at No.122-B, Nirankari Colony, Delhi which is a non-conforming area. Petitioner had deposited Rs.24,000.00 being the 30% of the price as per the second notification referred above. Petitioner also submitted all the requisite documents in support of his claim. Petitioner also has pointed out that in the year 1980 the Delhi Development Authority informed the Multi Small Scale Industries Association that the land would be allotted to the applicants, who had applied in the year 1976 and had made the payment of 30% of the premium in addition to' the earnest money, subject to the condition that the units were functioning in the non-conforming areas (vide Annexure 'C'). There was another letter dated 18.8.1980 stating that the Delhi Development Authority had decided to allot the industrial plots to nearly' 300applicants whohaddeposited30%ofthepremium. On 5.11.1980the petitioner was asked to furnish a legible photostat copy of Mcd license pertaining to the unit and location. According to the petitioner, this requirement of the municipal license was unnecessary because no such requirement was found in the application form. However, he asserts that he had applied for the license on 1.4.1976. He had also deposited the license fee but the license was issued only during 1982-83 under the ad hoc policy. In the year 1983 the petitioner submitted the copy of p=09 the license when he received the license from the MCD. The petitioner also submitted a letter/certificate dated 4.11.1988 issued by MCD. The certificate stated that the petitioner had been granted a license for the trade of dyeing with 7 Hpm under the ad hoc licensing policy at Rs.l22-B, Nirankari Colony, Delhi and that the license has been renewed up to 31.3.1989.
(4) The petitioner further asserts that a survey was conducted by the Senior Officers of the respondents in the year 1982, and during the survey it was realised that the petitioner's unit was found in non-conforming area and was functioning since prior to the year 1976. The petitioner also asserts that he produced all relevant documents Along with a letter dated 14.1.1981. In May, 1982 a Sub-Committee was formed by the Vice Chairman of Delhi Development Authority and this Committee had submitted a report on 9.9.1983. The petitioner refers to the relevant portion of the report bearing Survey Code No.261 which reads as follows:- "M/S.Chopra Dyeing Industry unit is located in a locality of Nirankari Colony, just opposite the main Gurudwara. The unit is functioning in 3000Sq.Ft.Plotforwhicha small area, big machines have been installed with heavy unauthorised power being used with 1OKWs. Because of extensive use of coal, the unit produces a lot of smoke in dyeing the Kashmilon wool. Recommendations: Considering the extensive scale of operation hazardous nature, excessive smoke and nuisance character, the Unit is recommended to be considered for alternative allotment/shifting."
(5) However, the petitioner was informed by a letter dated 1.9.1988 with reference to the petitioner's application No.11968 dated 10.3.1976 that the request of the petitioner for allotment of anindustrial plot ..as been examined, but the request cannot be acceded to. Along with the letter dated 5.12.1988 a cheque for Rs.24,500/ -was sent to the petitioner refunding the earnest money and the advance paid by him. Hence the present writ petition.
(6) The respondents have not filed any counter to the writ petition. The petitioner has asserted that his industry was not entitled to continue in the present area because with reference to the activity of the petitioner the locality was a non conforming area. The petitioner was not given any reason as to why his application was rejected. Petitioner suspects that the application was rejected because municipal license was not furnished Along with the application or subsequently for the relevant period.
(7) Mr. Sethi, the learned counsel for the Delhi Development Authority submitted that the application of the petitioner was rejected because there was no municipal License at the time of the petitioner's application for alternative allotment and according to the report of the High-Powered Committee the petitioner was having only 'Local Commercial License".
(8) In several cases heard by me, this was the only reason for rejecting the application for allotment of industrial plots. In a few cases the applications were rejected because the existing units were found in 'LAL DORA' which according to Mr. Sethi was p=09 not a non-conforming area and therefore the said units need not be shifted at all. In a few cases the applicants had license for household industries which can continue to operate in the non-conforming areas.
(9) The main question is whether the municipal license should have been produced by the applicant seeking the allotment of an industrial plot. The industrial plots are proposed to be allotted as per the scheme found in the two announcements of the year 1976. The purpose of the scheme is to provide alternative plots to the industrialists who cannot continue to function in non-conforming areas. The scheme no doubt is a beneficial scheme. Its object is to facilitate the proper development of Delhi. It envisages the industries to shift to the areas set apart for the industrial activities. Therefore, the scheme shall have to be elaborately construed so that its laudable objects could be properly implemented.
(10) The application for allotment of the plot shall have to be made in the prescribed form. The prescribed application forms had to be obtained earlier from the sale counter of the DDA. The application form looks to be self contained. Apart from the name and address of the applicant the form requires the applicant to give several details such as the year when the factory first started operation at the present site; whether the factory was registered under the Factories Act and if so to give the number and date of the registration; whether the unit was registered under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, if so to give the number and date of registration. Column 8 reads as folfows:- "Number and date of municipal license held, if any, and date up to which it is valid". Column No.9 requires the number and date of sanction for power connection. There were several other details to be given including the nature to tile industry and the nature of the process involved, number of machines installed etc. The applicant need not enclose the copy of the municipal license. In the course of the arguments it was pointed out that in several cases the municipality was not issuing licenses and only subsequently the municipality evolved an ad hoc policy under which licenses were issued.
(11) Neither the Scheme nor the application form required that an applicant would be eligible only if a municipal license is held by him. Such an eligibility rule is not found anywhere. The source of eligibility is the nature of the industry and the location where the said industry is being carried on by the applicant. If actually an applicant is able to show that he has been running an industry in a non conforming area, there is no reason to reject his claim for allotment only on the ground that he did not possess a municipal license in the year 1976. I came across instances where the applicant was having industrial license or registration under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act which would clearly establish that the said applicant was carrying on industrial activity in a non-conforming area.
(12) Mr. Sethi contended that there were a very large number of applicants in response to the first announcement made in the year 1976 and therefore to reduce the claim and confine the case to the genuine applicants the Delhi Development Authority decided that the applicants should make an advance payment of 30% of the premium. Thereafter there were about 300 applicants only. Since even this number was found p=09 to be in excess of the available plots the Sub-Committee formed by the Delhi Development Authority decided that the applicants should furnish municipallicenses, and whoever failed to furnish the municipal license for the year 1976 was held as ineligible for the allotment of the plots.
(13) Since the scheme nowhere contemplates such a requirement of a municipal license, I do not think it is permissible for the Committee of the Delhi Development Authority to impose a further restriction. No decision of the DDA modifying the requirement governing the eligibility of the applicants was placed before me on behalf of the DDA.
(14) In the instant case one of the Committees had submitted a report on 9.9.1983 recommending the case of the petitioner. The report states that the unit of the petitioner produces a lot of smoke in dyeing Kashmilon wool and the report recommends that the operation of the petitioner was of hazardous nature having excessive nuisance character.
(15) Delhi Development Authority is a public authority. It is bound by the standards held out by it as governing the case of several applicants. When the plots are allotted for a particular purpose in pursuance of a scheme formulated by the public authority, the public authority is expected to consider the case of the applicant with reference to the said scheme and the object sought to be projected by implementing the scheme. Only because there are a large number of applicants, the public authority cannot ignore the terms of the scheme, lf there are more number of applicants than the number of plots available, the Delhi Development Authority could have resorted to the drawing of lots amongst all the eligible applicants or could have probably proceeded to hold auctions. By imposing the requirement of the municipal license on an applicant, an artificial distinction is sought to be made amongst the industries who were operating in non-conforming areas.
(16) In several cases reasons are not forthcoming and the averments made in the- writ petition are not controverter. In such a situation-this court is entitled to accept the averments in the writ petition regarding factual situation. An assertion made in the writ petition as to the factual position, if not controverter, could normally be accepted as true in the absence of a patent reason forthcoming in the pleadings against accepting such an averment.
(17) The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the doctrine of promissory estoppel to advance these cases. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that allotment of plots is a matter of policy and that public interest requires that allotment should be made to eligible persons only and that at the time of receiving the advance of 30%, eligibility of the applicant was not considered and that the Delhi Development Authority had considered the respective cases thoroughly.
(18) I do not think it necessary to repeat the well established principles of promissory estoppel. There is a scheme announced to allot plots to the industrialists who are required under the law to shift from the existing places. If the applicants are found eligible they are expected to be allotted with the plots, provided the terms of the scheme are complied with by the applicants. The norms for allotment were formulated and announced. These standards are to be adhered to by the DDA.
(19) It is true the right of an applicant is that the Delhi Development Authority should consider his application in the light of the scheme. However, if an application is rejected on an erroneous ground, and the material on record discloses that the petitioner is entitled for allotment of a plot, this court need not send back the case for reconsideration by the Dda, especially, having regard to the lapse of time and the fact that the plots are sufficiently available.
(20) Thedelhidevelopmentact, into force w.e.f. 30th December, 1957. Section 15(1) provides for compulsory acquisition of land by the Central Government. As per Section 15(2) after any land has been acquired, and possession is taken, the Central Government may transfer the land to the Authority or any local authority for the purpose for-which the land has been acquired on payment by the Authority or the local authority of the compensation awarded and of the charges incurred by .the Government in connection with the acquisition.
(21) Transfer to the Authority or to local authority is optional under Section 15(2) and this transfer is for- consideration as provided therein. When land is thus transferred, then, the transferee (the authority or the local authority) may dispose of the land to such persons, in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as it considers expedient for securing the development of Delhi according to the Master Plan. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 provides for disposal of such a land to those who reside or carry on business on the land acquired.
(22) Section 22 governs Nazul Lands. Under this, the Central Government may place at the disposal of the Authority the land vested in the Union for the purpose of development. The land thus developed shall be dealt with by the Authority in accordance with Rules made or the directions given by the Central Government. Distinction between Section 21 & 22 is quite clear. Under Section 21, land may be transferred to the authority or any local authority to be thereafter disposed of by the latter. Under Section 22, the land continues to vest in the Central Government, but placed at the disposal of the Authority (no reference to local authority here) in accordance with the rules made, and the director is given by the Central Government under Section 21, the disposal of the land by the Authority or the local authority is as per the conditions laid down by the Authority or the local authority; but under Section 22, similar conditions are to be laid down by the Central Government. Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981, (referred as Nazul Land Rules) was made by the Central Government under Section 22. Allotment of Nazul Land at pre-determined rates is provided under Rule 6. There are six categories of persons to whom land may be allotted under Rule 6. As per clause (v), Nazul land may be allotted to industrialists or owners and occupiers of ware-houses who are required to shift their industries and ware-houses from non-conforming areas to conforming area under the Master Plan, etc. Rule 8 is another mode of allotting the land on payment of premium.
(23) The scheme for allotment involved in the writ petitions before me is of the year 1976. The scheme was formulated prior to the above referred Rules of the year 1981. Therefore, the Rules of the year 1981 would not govern the allotments. However, it is clear that Section 22 governs the Scheme and the allotment, p=09 (24) However, I find that there is no substantial difference between the terms of the scheme and Rule 6(v). Both contemplate the allotment of sites to those who are carrying on their industries in non-conforming areas (NCA). The rate under Rule 6(v), is the pre-determined rate, as defined under Rule 3(h), while the rate charged under the Scheme of the year 1976 is fixed under the said scheme.
(25) The scheme of the year 1976 could be traced to the policy laid down by the Union Government in the year 1961 (referred hereinafter as the 1961 policy'). Para 6 of this policy states that all land acquired under the said scheme (policy) will be Nazul Land and will vest in the President and will be given out only on lease hold basis to local bodies, and private parties, including inter alia, individuals. The rate to be charged for the allotment is to be fixed as per sub-para 7. Sub-para 8 directs that normally disposal of developed land should be made by auction and the premium should be determined by the highest bid, except in the cases following, where land may be allotted at pre-determined rates; namely-the cost of acquisition and development plus the additional charge mentioned in sub-para (7). One of the cases following is found in clause b(ii) of sub-para 8 which refers to industrialists who are being asked to remove their factories from their present locations. Such allotments will be subject to the condition that the location of the industry concerned" is to be in accordance with the Master Plan and the Advisory Committee referred in this policy shall be consulted in making such allotments. Clause (b) (i) refers to the size of the plot to be allotted to the industrialists.
(26) The basic theme in all these provisions is to provide land to the industrialists who under law or the Master plan cannot continue to carry on their industries in non-conforming areas, at pre-determined rates (except in cases where auction is to be held).
(27) In Ramanand Vs.Union of India and others; , a Full Bench of this Court had to consider the scope of the Nazul Land Rules 1981. The petitioner had applied for allotment of the land after March 1986 and his case was recommended by the Delhi Development Authority in December 1988. In January 1993, petitioner was informed that it had been decided to allot him a plot measuring 207 Sq. Mtrs. in Rohini Residential Scheme and that allotment would be made at pre-determined rates, to be decided by the Govern- ment or Dd A for the year 1992-93. The size of the plot offered to the petitioner was a reduced size from the one recommended by the Administrator. Petitioner questioned this offer of a smaller plot; he also questioned the legality of applying the pre-determined rate for the year 1992-93, since he had applied for the plot earlier and that his land had been acquired from him in the year 1986. Petitioner contended that, atleast the rate as on 28.12.1990 should be applied, because on that day the Administrator had recommended his case for allotment and the delay in making the allotment was caused by the DDA.
(28) The Full Bench held that Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act was inapplicable as the land to be allotted was Nazul Land. Similarly clause 8 of the 1961 policy was also inapplicable. It was further held that in view of the Nazul Land Rules, 1981, the p=09 1961 policy ceased to be in force. As to the rates, the Full Bench held in paragraph 24 & 25 (at pag 609) as follows: "RULE6, in reality, controls the rates of premium chargeable only in those cases. where land is allotted to the persons mentioned therein. In other cases, the rules provide for sale of land at the market price determined by the highest bid on public auction of land. Thus the principle expressed in the form of 'exception' in clause 8 of the 1961 Scheme, which has already been discussed above, is embodied into the Nazul Rules. Where the Delhi Development Authority decided to allot Nazul land to the persons named in this rule, it is bound to charge premium from the allottees only at the predetermined rates. The right and corresponding duty con tained in this rule is of a different kind than that ought to be invoked by the petitioner. The right or entitlement of any to allotment of Nazul land is not regulated by this rule. It regulates only the rate at which premium shall be chargeable in certain cases, and it restricts the liability of allottees, in specified cases, to pay premium for allotment of Nazul land at the pre-determined rates, and no less and no more. Rule 6(1) proviso, undoubtedly, provides for determination of size of the plot by the Administrator if an individual is to be allotted a residential plot. But, the power to make the allotment lies within the domain of the DDA. The Administrator, being the land acquiring authority, is to verify whether the land of an individual applicant is acquired, and the area and value thereof. On these facts, then, the Dda, who is entrusted with the power and function of development and disposal of land, would examine the matter, in the light of the plans and the other rules, and decide whether a plot may be allotted to him, and, if so, of what size and where. It cannot be said, on the basis of this provision, that the right to allotment of a plot would accrue, merely on verification of the claim, and even on the basis of recommendation made by the Administrator in favor of the individual whose land is acquired."
Again in para 28, the Court held : "As a result of the above discussion, we find that an individual whose land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi, has no absolute right to allotment, but, he is eligible to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for residential purposes; and that the Dda may allot Nazul land to such an individual, in conformity with the plans and subject to other provisions of the Nazul Rules."
(29) On the second question regarding the date with reference to which rate for allotment should be levied, the Full Bench held in paragraphs 32,33 and 34 (at page 611) :- "IN a transaction for sale of immovable property, among other material terms, the price/premium should be settled to conclude a valid and binding contract between the parties. Where the Delhi Development Authority enters into such atransaction, it is bound to charge premium only at the pre-determined rates in force at the time when it proceeds to allot a plot of land under Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules. Rule 24 of the Nazul Rules lays down the manner for realisation of the price of land in Installments. The first Installment of 25% of the total premium is to be deposited at the time of 'submitting application for allotment of land. Here, the application for allotment, it may be noted, is not the same application that is initially required to be made to the Administrator which was the p=09 subject matter of the earlier discussion. The application under this rule is required to be made to the Delhi Development Authority if the individual accepts the terms and conditions, including the rate of premium, offered by the Delhi Development Authority for allotment of a specific plot. The second Installment of 50% of the premium is required to be deposited within sixty days of the issue of- demand-cum-allotment letter, and the balance amount, after adjusting the earnest money, to be deposited before taking over possession of the land or within two months of the receipt of communication from the authority offering possession, which ever is earlier. Rule 24 would really come into play when the Delhi Development Authority makes a firm offer to the individual for allotment of a specific plot, at the specified premium, and he accepts the offer. It requires the allottee to communicate his acceptance in the form of the application, and act upon it by making payment of the first Installment of the stipulated premium. Thus, this rule indicates that it is the premium calculated at the rate prevailing at the time when a firm offer of allotment of a plot is made by the Dd A to the allottee that would properly constitute the consideration for concluding a valid contract between the parties. In any event, development can be. undertaken only after land is acquired. How can development charges be ascertained without undertaking development in a particular area or zone? Obviously, predetermined rates, having regard to development charges, cannot be worked out at the time when the land is acquired. For this simple reason alone, the plea that premium for allotment of a plot to an individual whose land has been acquired, should be chargeable at the predetermined rates prevailing at the time when his land was acquired, cannot be accepted. The position would be the same at the next two stages also, when the application is made to the Administrator for allotment of a plot, and when the Administrator may recommend the case for allotment. Logically, predetermined rates would come into play for calculation of the amount of premium chargeable from the concerned person only at the time when the offer is made to him for allotment of a plot in a particular area or zone. We, therefore, proceed to answer the second question, and hold that the rates of premium chargeable from different categories of persons, including an individual whose land has been acquired, shall be the predetermined rates in force at the time when the offer is made to the concerned person for allotment of a specific plot of land in a particular area or zone, under rule 6 of Nazul Rules."
(30) Mr. Sethi, strongly relied on this decision to contend that petitioners have no right to the allotment of lands and, in any event, price for the land to be allotted shall have to be the rate to be fixed at the time of allotment.
(31) I find a substantial difference between the above cases before the Full Bench and the instant cases before me. In the instant case, the applications were invited seeking allotment; applicants were required to deposit 30% of the price and the balance in Installments. The scheme no where stated that the price to be charged was liable to be varied. Out of 292 applicants who had deposited 30% of the price (at the then pre-detonated rates), a substantial number of applicants were allotted with the plots and the applications of the petitioners were rejected on the grounds, which according to the petitioners, are not valid grounds. If p=09 the Delhi Development Authority had applied proper principles and appreciated the relevant facts in proper perspective, the petitioners also would have been allotted with the plots at the same rate applied in those cases to whom plots were allotted in the year 1988 or near about, under the very scheme. In the case before the Full Bench as stated in paragraph 33 of the decision, the advance to be paid was only after plot is offered and then 25% of the premium had to be paid. In the instant case, the pre-determined rate as prevalent at the time of allotments in the year 1988 or 1989 has to be applied because the right of the petitioners arose when cases for allotment were taken up and applications disposed of.
(32) I am of the view that if the petitioners succeed in establishing that denial of the plots to them under the impugned orders was arbitrary and the result of non application of the mind to the true facts or as a result of applying irrelevant factors, petitioners' case shall have to be considered as on the day, their claims were wrongly rejected. They have a right to be treated on par with others who were granted the plots under similar circumstances.
(33) The allotment made to others under the scheme of the year 1976, in or about the year 1987 or 1988 cannot be considered as illegal. These allotments were in terms of the 1976 scheme. If so, by directing allotment of plots to the petitioners (who were denied the benefit of the scheme illegally) at the same pre-determined rate cannot run counter to the decision of the Full Bench.
(34) The Full Bench in Ramanand's case was not concerned with any particular scheme and denial of equal treatment to the petitioner as against others.
(35) The decision rendered by me in M/s. Golden Hosiery Mills Vs. Delhi Development Authority also has no bearing to the instant case. The petitioner therein had not even established his eligibility for the allotment of theland. lt was not proved that the alleged industrial activity of the petitioner was against the Master Plan. It is in such asituation, it was held that, the petitioner cannot seek allotment, only because, a few others who were ineligible for allotment were allotted with the plots. At page 1013, it is stated: "I have already noted that the petitioner has not referred to any particular provision of the Act or the Rules under which he is eligible to be allotted a site at a concessional rate. His case throughout has been that he is required to shift. His unit is, therefore, entitled to an alternative site. He is also claiming a right on the basis that other similar persons have been allotted with the sites. But if there is no eligibility in the petitioner for allotment of a site, it will not be possible for this court to direct the respondent to allot a site in favor of the petitioner. I am of the firm view that the concept of equality under Article 14 does not envisage an equal treatment in illegality. Article 14 contemplates equal protection of the laws. It does not extend the benefit of an illegality to anyone."
(36) The ratio of the decision of a Division Bench in Kure Vs. Delhi Administration & Another; , is also to the same effect, where, the Full Bench decision in Ramanand's case was distinguished. One of the writ petitions (C.W. 684/1988 - M/s. Bhagwati Plastic Industries), had gone to the Supreme p=09 Court and the court remanded it to this Court. The order of the Supreme Court is found in Bhagwati Plastics Industries Vs. Union of India and others; .
(37) In view of the above my conclusions are: (1) The 1976 scheme governs the case of the petitioners. (2) Applicant who is running an industry in a non-conforming area is entitled to be considered for allotment of the plot under the 1976 Scheme, provided the applicant has complied with other terms of the scheme. (3) Whether the applicant's industry is in a non-conforming area or not is not dependent upon the Municipal License for the trade or industry. Applicant may prove the basic facts as to the nature of the industry and the nature of the existing locality by any other material. (4 )Wherever, if rejection of an application for the plot is without valid reason, the Delhi Development Authority could be directed to allot an appropriate plot to the petitioner, having regard to the lapse of time, the nature of the scheme and the fact that plots are still available. (I will be presently pointing out that industrial plots in sufficient numbers under the 1976 Scheme are still available with the DDA. (5) An allottee of the plot under this order of the Court is liable to pay the price at the rate fixed under the 1976 scheme. However, such an allottee shall pay interest on the balance sum payable for the allotment at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from the date of the impugned order/letter rejecting his application referred in the respective writ petitions. (6) Burden is on the applicant to prove that his industry was located in a non-conforming area and is still located in such an area. Further, it is for the petitioner to prove that the particular alleged industry is an activity not permitted in the non-conforming area under the Master Plan and therefore, the law expects him to shift the said activity from the present locality. (7) A mere oral assertion on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority that an area is not a non- conforming area, is not sufficient, in case, there is any material placed by the petitioner to indicate that action has been taken against him or someone on the ground that the particular industrial activity in that area is not permitted.
(38) Fifty plots have been directed to be reserved by this court in view of these writ petitions. Several plots are still available is also proved by the fact that Dda announced auctioning of several plots. Therefore, there is no difficulty to allot the plots to the successful writ petitioners. The price to be charged for the plots has to be at the rate announced in the 1976 scheme. Since the petitioners are now required to pay the balance of the price, it is proper that they should pay interest on the balance amount payable with effect from the respective dates of the letters rejecting their claims. The rate of interest shall be 18% per annum.
(39) Now The Facts Of Each Connected Case May Be NOTICED: C.W.P. NO.164/1989. The claim of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the petitioner's industry is in 'LAL DORA' and according to Mr. Sethi there is no bar to continue the existing industry in the said location. No counter is filed in the writ petition. Even according to the petitioner the industry is in 'LAL DORA', but the petitioner asserts that it is in a non-conforming area. This is essentially a question of fact and this assertion is not denied by filing any counter.
(40) C.W.P.NO. 2524/1989: The application of the petitioner, Vijaya Steel Products is rejected and no reason is given by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents had furnished a chart indicating the report of the Survey Committee as well as the report of the High Powered Committee in respect of each of the petitioners. While the report of the Survey Committee stated that the petitioner was in 'LAL DORA' and there was no clear Mcd license, the nature of the report of the High Powered Committee is not forthcoming in the chart. In the writ petition the petitioner asserts that the activity is being carried on in non-conforming area and petitioner was issued with a show cause notice under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of Delhi Development Act for contravening the Zonal Development Plan. The said notice was issued in August, 1980. Since the petitioner's application for alternative plot was pending the learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings. The petitioner points out that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that the respondents were estopped from prosecuting the petitioners till the application of the petitioners for the alternative plot under the 1976 scheme was considered. Petitioner also has pointed out in the writ petition that there is another industrial unit in the very premises where in the petitioner is carrying on the activity. The name of the cither industrial unit is M/s. Decollate India and the said concern was allotted with anindustrial plot under the very scherne.These assertions, as already noted by me, are not denied by any counter by the respondents. And therefore, it has to be held that the petitioner has established its eligibility for the allotment of an industrial plot under the 1976 scheme, though the unit of the petitioner is stated to be in 'LAL DORA' area.
(41) C.W.F. NO. 1526/1989: The report of the high powered committee is not known. But the report of the Survey Committee seems to suggest that the petitioner's unit is located in 'LAL DORA', as per the chart furnished to me. There is counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. Even in the counter affidavit there is no assertion that in 'LAL DORA' the industry of the petitioner could be continued. The assertion of the petitioner is not denied. The entire counter affidavit is vague. Further, the industry run by Vijaya Steel Products (petitioner in C.W. 2524/1989) is also in 'LAL DORA' and in the said case it is shown that the petitioner was prosecuted for running the industry. Therefore, the oral assertion of Mr. Sethi that there is no bar for the industry to.run, cannot be accepted to dislodge the claim of the petitioners.
(42) C.W.P. NO. 1552/1989: A counter is filed in the instant case. The application of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that no municipal license of non-conforming category was produced. Mr. Sethi submitted that the unit is located in'LAL DORA'. I have already held above that the assertion of the petitioners that 'LAL DORA' is not non conforming area shall have to be accepted. Even the counter affidavit filed by the Dda does not assert that 'LAL DORA' is not a non-conforming area. The application was rejected only because the appropriate municipal license was not produced. In the writ petition the petitioner has asserted that he had obtained the license and produced the same and that he had been running the factory since theyearl973. The license itself mentions that the industry is not a non-conforming area. According to the petitioner the survey conducted in the year 1982 also revealed that the petitioner's industry was in a non-conforming area.
(43) C.W.F. NO. 209/1989: The application of the petitioner for allotment was rejected without tracing any reason. In the chart furnished to me by Mr. Sethi, it is stated that no municipal license was furnished by the petitioner at the time of the application, which according to me is not a valid reason; but for this petitioner seems to be eligible for allotment and his application seems to have been rejected on erroneous view of the legal position.
(44) C.W. 2538/1989: The petitioner has produced the material to show that the petitioner was even prosecuted for running the industry in non-conforming area. No counter affidavit is filed to the writ petition. High Powered Committee seems to have not give any reason while the Survey Committee reported that the unit was found closed at the time of the said Committee's inspection. Petitioner has asserted that the petitioner is still carrying on industrial activity and in view of the prosecution launched against the petitioner it is-clear that the petitioner is running the industry in a non-conforming area.
(45) C.W.2562 & 2623/1989: The respective applications of the petitioners were rejected because the petitioners were having only the license for storing spices and not for any industrial purpose. There is nothing to indicate that the manufacture of spices or masala is an industrial activity which cannot be carried on in a non-conforming area. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's applications is justified.
(46) C.W. 2566/1989: The only ground for rejecting the petitioner's application was non-production of the municipal license. Petitioner has produced sufficient.material such as the certificate issued under the provisions of Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 and certificates of registration under the Central. Sales Tax Act and the Delhi Sales Tax Act. Petitioner has asserted that the municipal license was not issued to the petitioner because the industry was found to be in a residential area, but subsequently the , license was issued with retrospective effect from 1973 onwards. It is clear that the petitioner has been carrying on the industry in a non- conforming area and otherwise the petitioner has satisfied all other requirements of the scheme of the year 1976. The rejection of the petitioner's application, on the face of it, is based on an erroneous conception of of the requirement of a municipal license.
(47) C.W. 1554/1989: According to the respondents the industry carried on by the petitioner is a house hold industry ahd therefore, there is no bar against its location in anon- conforming area, and this assertion also is found in the counter affidavit filed on be half of the DDA. It is essentially a question of fact. Since the industry is a house hold industry the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected.
(48) C.W. 299/1989: The petitioner has asserted that he has been carrying on the industrial activity in a non-conforming area. The letter informing the petitioner that his application was rejected also does not give any reason for the rejection. Though the counter is-filed, it is not clear as to why the petitioner's request was rejected. The rejection seems the actually on the basis that the industry was a house hold industry. If so certainly the petitioner is not entitled to seek an alternative plot.
(49) C.W.3175/1989: The letter informing the petitioner rejecting his application does not give an\ reason. The petitioner asserts that he is carrying on an industrial activity in a non- conforming area. The sole reason for rejecting the application seems to be the failure of the petitioner to file the municipal license. The petitioner asserts that he had registered under the provisions of Delhi Shops and Establishment Act and under the provisions of he Sales Tax Act. A reading of the writ petition shows that the petitioner was carrying on the business of refining silver, sale and purchase of standard gold, silver and manufacture of Copper Sulphate and the application for municipal license was refused because the trade was hazardous. Petitioner was prosecuted by the 4th respondent, Municipal Corporation. This apart, petitioner has pointed out that one Sri Ram Chander, who was originally carrying on the business in partnership in the very premises separated from the petitioner and started independent business nearby (adjacent to the petitioner) and the said person had been allotted industrial plot under the very scheme. This assertion is not denied. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the petitioner has satisfied the eligibility requirement.
(50) C.W.F.NO. 3318/1989: The reason for rejecting the petitioner's application seems to be non-production of the municipal license at the time of the application. Otherwise the petitioner is found to be eligible. The refusal to allot the plot to the petitioner, therefore, is on an erroneous ground.
(51) C.W.P. NO. 3564/1989: It is stated in the counter affidavit that the license produced by the petitioner is for an activity of house hold nature. The nature of the industry is not stated in the writ petition and in fact-1 find not only in this writ petition but in several writ petitions that the respective writ petitioners have not properly explained the nature of the activities. The relevant facts are mixed up in several paragraphs instead of narrating the facts clearly in the opening paragraphs. I do not think I can grant any relief to this petitioner in view of the specific finding of the DDA.
(52) C.W.P. NO. 572/1989: In this writ petition also it is difficult to gather the facts from the writ petition. The nature of the industry should have been highlighted in the opening paragraphs instead of concentrating on narrating the scheme under which the petitioner applied for the flats. There is an assertion throughout the writ petition that the petitioner is entitled to the allotment. In the circumstances it is not possible to uphold the claim of the petitioner.
(53) C.W. 741/1989: The only ground stated in the counter affidavit of the respondent is that the petitioner has not produced any municipal license for running the industry at the present premises. It is not the case of the Delhi Development Authority that the industry in question is located in a non-conforming area. Therefore, the petitioner will be entitled to an industrial plot as sought for.
(54) C.W. 460/1992: According to the respondents the petitioner's industry is nothing but a small scale work which causes no nuisance to adjoining area and therefore it can be continued in the present location. From the writ petition it is difficult to gather the nature of the work/industry of the petitioner even though the writ petition is quite lengthy. The petitioner should have concentrated on facts of the case instead of filling up pages of the writ petition with arguments. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order rejecting the petitioner's claim.
(55) C.W. 684/1988: As the industry is located in a conforming area as per the Master Plan, the application was rejected. The petitioner points out that the a license was issued by the Municipal Corporation and in fact on 6.2.1981 the petitioner was informed by the Deputy Director (Commercial) of the Delhi Development Authority that it has been decided to allot the petitioner the industrial plot nearMangolpuri. However, there is no indication in any of the representations made by the petitioner that his industry is located in non-conforming area. The representations - such as Annexures G & H state that the landlord of the petitioner has been pressing the petitioner to vacate and therefore, the petitioner seeks an alternative plot. I was told that this matter had gone to the Supreme Court and it was remanded back as per order . This court has been asked to decide as to whether the petitioner has been carrying on industry in non-conforming area. I afton of the p=09 view that in the absence of clinching material placed by the petitioner that the locality where the petitioner has been carrying on the alleged industrial activity is a non-conforming area, the statement made by the Delhi Development Authority shall have to be accepted. If the petitioner is prosecuted for any reason on this ground that he is carrying on activity in non-conforming area, the petitioner can rely upon the statement made before this court on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority that the locality in question is not a non-conforming area. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(56) C.W. 3001/1989: Storage of books and book binding on the face of it cannot be held to be an industrial activity prohibited in non-conforming area. Since there is no bar against the petitioner continuing the activity in the present locality, the petitioner is not eligible for the allotment.
(57) C.W. 989/1992: No counter is filed in this writ petition. The petitioner has asserted that the petitioner has been carrying on an industrial activity in the non-conforming area and the license dated 18.5.1976 also proves the same. No reason is given for rejecting the petitioner's application. Assertions made by the petitioner are not controverter. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
(58) C.W. 454/1989: The petitioner asserts that the Municipal Corporation had issued a license and enclosed a copy of the letter of the municipality dated 4.11.1977. Petitioner has asserted that the industrial activity is being carried on in non-conforming area. The petitioner also asserts that he had produced the copies of the municipal license, excise license, sales tax registration and shop establishment registration. The rejection of the petitioner's claim being without any basis cannot be sustained.
(59) C.W. 425/1989: The petitioner's application was rejected without giving any reason. A counter affidavit is filed by the DDA. It is asserted in the counter affidavit that the activity of the petitioner is simple and it can be carried on in the existing place in the local shopping area of Model Town. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of an alternative industrial plot. The petitioner has not produced any material that he is required to shift from the existing locality. The writ petition shall have to be dismissed accordingly.
(60) C.W.P.NO. 1806/1988: The petitioner has produced ample material to show that he has been carrying on an industry in the non-conforming area.. The counter affidavit filed states that the municipal license produced by the petitioner was for house hold industries and the volume of the work was found not of an extensive nature. The petitioner has been manufacturing components of radio, television p=09 and allied items. There is nothing to indicate that the industry is required to be shifted.
(61) C.W.P. NO. 1907/1989: The petitioner asserts that he is carrying on the industrial activity in non- conforming area. In addition to the other materials, the petitioner has produced. a copy of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation as to why action should not be taken under Section 14 read with Section 39(2) of the Delhi Development Act because the petitioner has been running a manufacturing unit in contravention of the land use prescribed in the Master Plan for Delhi All the partners of the petitioner firm were issued with identical .notices dated, 25.8.1993. As to what happened to this show cause notice thereafter is not forthcoming. The respondent has seriously questioned the fact that it is a non-