Delhi High Court - Orders
Aghum Bahl vs Dsiidc And Anr on 30 May, 2022
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~ 98(Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 2350/2011 & CM No. 5011/2011
AGHUM BAHL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Adv.
versus
DSIIDC AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan and
Mr.B.Garg, Adv. for R-1
Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASC-GNCTD with
Ms.Ayushi Bansal, Mr.Sanyam Suri and
Mr.Aishwarya Sharma, Advs. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 30.05.2022
1. The precise case outlined by Mr. Rajiv Aneja, learned Counsel, is as follows.
2. The Supreme Court in its judgment in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India 1 directed that industrial units located in non-conforming areas, i.e. areas in which industrial activities were not permissible, were required to be re-located and granted alternative plots. Pursuant to the said judgment, a scheme for re-location was drawn up by the Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC). The 1 (1996) 4 SCC 750 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2350/2011 Page 1 of 4 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:01.06.2022 10:48:46 scheme envisaged grant of alternative plots, provided the unit was located in a non-conforming industrial area. It was also envisaged, in the scheme, that, if the unit was located in an area in which industrial activity was permitted, i.e. an area slated for redevelopment, alternative plots would not be available.
3. On the basis of the said scheme, the petitioner, which was located in Samaipur Badli, then a non-conforming area, and was eligible for relocation, applied for relocation on 23rd December, 1996. As required by the scheme, the petitioner undertook to stop industrial activities and actually discontinued industrial activity with effect from 1st January, 1997. Pursuant thereto, in 1998, the petitioner shifted to Libaspur and sold his plot located in Samaipur Badli.
4. Thereafter, in 1999, Samaipur Badli was enlisted for re- development, and consequently, a Public Notice was issued by the Commissioner of Industries, GNCTD on 4th September, 1999 (at page 79 of the paper book), in which it was stated that units located in Anand Parbat, Samaipur Badli and Shahdara would not be entitled for allotment under the relocation scheme as they were covered by the redevelopment scheme under the Master Plan for Delhi-2021.
5. Mr. Aneja submits that this proscription would not affect his rights as, by this time, his client had left Samaipur Badli and sold his plot located therein. At the time when he had submitted his application for re-location, Mr. Aneja points out that his plot was eligible for relocation, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2350/2011 Page 2 of 4 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:01.06.2022 10:48:46 being located in a non-conforming industrial area. The subsequent declaration of the area as a re-development area, after the petitioner had left the area and sold his plot, could not, in Mr. Aneja's submission, detract from his rights to relocation.
6. Insofar as the Libaspur area was concerned, Mr. Aneja acknowledges that the Libaspur area was also declared as a redevelopment area in 2005. That, however, could also not stand in the way of his client's entitlement, as he was not the owner of any plot in the Libaspur area but was merely a tenant.
7. Predicated on these submissions, Mr. Aneja asserts his client's right to relocation.
8. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned Counsel for DSIIDC submits that the location of the petitioner in Libaspur is really not of much significance, as only one application could be submitted for relocation, which was submitted at the time when the petitioner was in the Samaipur Badli area. However, she submits that the right of the petitioner to an alternative plot would enure on the date when an alternative plot was allotted to him, and not on the date when the application form was submitted. As, before any plot was allotted to him, Samaipur Badli was declared to be an industrial area slated for redevelopment, Ms. Salwan submits that the petitioner was not entitled to any alternative plot under the scheme. She also seeks to place on record, in this regard, a few Signature Not Verified judgments on which she would like to place reliance.
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2350/2011 Page 3 of 4By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:01.06.2022 10:48:46
9. Accordingly, re-notify as part-heard for disposal on 7th July, 2022.
10. Ms.Salwan is directed to e-mail copies of the judgments on which she seeks to place reliance both to the Court Master as well as to Mr. Aneja at least 48 hours in advance of the next date of hearing.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J MAY 30, 2022/kr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2350/2011 Page 4 of 4 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:01.06.2022 10:48:46