Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Yashpal Madan And Ors. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. [Along With ... on 15 May, 2007 cites

Delhi Development Authority vs Ashok Kumar Behal And Ors on 20 August, 2002

It is clear that if the petitioners had challenged the price enhancement from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre on the ground that it was related to any of these factors, then the writ petitions could not have been entertained in view of the various decisions referred to by Ms Salwan and particularly the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sheelawanti (supra) and the decision of Supreme Court in the case of DDA v. Ashok Kumar Behl (supra). But, as revealed by the respondents, the price hike from Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre was not on account of any of the aforesaid factors, but on account of the policy of charging 20% unearned increase annually. In these circumstances, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent would not come in the way of the petitioners. The writ petitions would be maintainable and the respondents would have to justify as to on what basis the enhancement of the prices from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre has been done. Merely citing a policy of 20% unearned increase annually would not be sufficient because that is not the cost of acquisition, nor is it the cost of construction/development, nor is it related to the location of flatted factories complexes/industrial areas, nor is there any other input. There are no other factors which have to be taken into account for arriving at the land price as indicated under the relocation scheme.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 122 - Full Document

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004

2. The petitioners had to shut down their industrial undertakings/units which were being run in Delhi in non-conforming areas/residential areas pursuant to orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India . The Supreme Court had directed the shutting down of industries in the non-conforming/residential areas and had also directed that the same be relocated in industrial areas. The DSIDC was made responsible for devising a scheme for relocation of such non-conforming industries/undertakings which were running prior to 1996. The relocation scheme was introduced in 1996 itself. Thereafter, the respondents invited applications from eligible persons in 1996 for allotment of industrial plots in authorised industrial areas developed/to be developed by the Page 1563 authorities for the purposes of relocating the industrial units. The petitioners are all applicants pursuant to the said policy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 1765 - H K Sema - Full Document

Avashan Mandal Parijat Uch Ayavargh ... vs Rajasthan Housiong Board And Ors. on 16 November, 1992

She also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Awasan Mandal Parijat UCH Ayawarg Sangharsh Samiti v. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. . In particular, she referred to paragraphs 5, 7, 9 and 11 to indicate that in respect of the same land where flats were allotted at different stages, different prices could be charged. However, I may point out straightaway, if Page 1567 one looks closely at this decision, one would find that the justification for charging different prices for flats was essentially because the higher price was charged for later flats as in those cases the development work was yet to be completed at the earlier stages. The sum and substance of Ms Salwan's submissions is that, firstly, the date of allotment would be the date which would be relevant for fixing the price of the land. Secondly, these are matters of pricing policy and the court's jurisdiction is very limited. The court could only interfere in cases where there was blatant arbitrariness and not where a reasonable policy decision had been taken. Thirdly, she submitted that the relationship between the petitioners and the DSIDC was a contractual one and it was entirely governed by paragraph 5 of the guidelines contained in the brochure which has been set out above. Therefore, a writ petition was not maintainable and, if there was any grievance, the petitioners could file suits in respect of the same.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Rose Educational Scientific And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 8 May, 1989

With reference to the aforesaid extract, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the tentative cost of plot was fixed at Rs. 4,200/- per sq. metre which was subject to revision depending upon the actual cost of development of the industrial plot. This rate of Rs. 4,200/- per sq. metre was in respect of allotments to be made in Bawana Industrial Area. However, for allotments in Narela, the rate was Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre as indicated in paragraph 7 of the said letter. In the context of this letter, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the rate of Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre could be revised, but that would depend upon the actual cost of development of the industrial plot and on nothing else. He submitted that the hike in the land price from Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre is not on account of the actual cost of development of the industrial plot, but on account of the policy decision of charging 20% unearned increase each year after 2001. He submitted that, first of all, there is no provision for charging of unearned increase under the relocation scheme. Secondly, even if the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent [DSIDC] was a contractual one, the DSIDC could not arbitrarily raise the price in violation of all the conditions and stipulations contained in the scheme. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the shifting of policy was not permissible and, in support of this, reliance was placed on the decision of a learned single of this Court in the case of Rose Educational Scientific and Cultural Society (Regd.) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. . A reference was made to paragraph 11 of the said decision to indicate that a mid-stream shifting of policy was not permissible. The policy that was in vogue at the time the applications were invited was the one which, according to the petitioners, would be applicable to the petitioners even at the time of allotment of the land. In the same light they referred to a decision of another learned single judge of this Court in the case of Kashi Nath Singh (Sq. Ldr.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 (67) DRJ 578 wherein it was indicated that the policy prevalent at the relevant time when the advertisement was issued and the applications were made was the one which was applicable and not the policy which was introduced subsequently.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Smt. Sheelawanti And Another vs D.D.A. And Another on 3 February, 1995

It is clear that if the petitioners had challenged the price enhancement from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre on the ground that it was related to any of these factors, then the writ petitions could not have been entertained in view of the various decisions referred to by Ms Salwan and particularly the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sheelawanti (supra) and the decision of Supreme Court in the case of DDA v. Ashok Kumar Behl (supra). But, as revealed by the respondents, the price hike from Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre was not on account of any of the aforesaid factors, but on account of the policy of charging 20% unearned increase annually. In these circumstances, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent would not come in the way of the petitioners. The writ petitions would be maintainable and the respondents would have to justify as to on what basis the enhancement of the prices from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre has been done. Merely citing a policy of 20% unearned increase annually would not be sufficient because that is not the cost of acquisition, nor is it the cost of construction/development, nor is it related to the location of flatted factories complexes/industrial areas, nor is there any other input. There are no other factors which have to be taken into account for arriving at the land price as indicated under the relocation scheme.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 33 - D K Jain - Full Document
1