1997 (7) TMI 697 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of applications for allotment of plots by the DDA.
2. Requirement of municipal licenses under Section 416 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
3. Application of Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981.
4. Validity and retrospective effect of municipal licenses.
5. Discrepancies in the criteria for allotment by DDA.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Applications for Allotment of Plots by the DDA:
The appellants were aggrieved by the DDA's rejection of their applications for allotment of plots, despite having deposited earnest money and 30% of the premium as required by the public notices issued in February and September 1976. The rejection was primarily based on the absence of municipal licenses and compliance with the Nazul Rules.

2. Requirement of Municipal Licenses under Section 416 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act:
The DDA argued that applicants needed valid municipal licenses under Section 416 of the DMC Act to be eligible for plot allotment. Section 416 stipulates that no factory, workshop, or trade premises can be established without the Commissioner's prior written permission. The contravention of this provision entails penal consequences under Section 461, including fines and imprisonment.

3. Application of Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981:
Rule 6(v) of the Nazul Rules requires industrialists or owners of warehouses to shift from non-conforming to conforming areas under the Master Plan. The Division Bench noted that Rule 6(v) did not mandate holding a municipal license as a precondition for allotment. The rule aimed to facilitate the shifting of industries from non-conforming to conforming areas.

4. Validity and Retrospective Effect of Municipal Licenses:
The Division Bench observed that the phrase "if any" in the application form indicated that holding a municipal license was not mandatory for plot allotment. It was also noted that the petitioners had applied for and were granted municipal licenses with retrospective effect, covering the dates of their applications for plot allotment. Thus, the DDA's contention based on the possession of municipal licenses was not upheld.

5. Discrepancies in the Criteria for Allotment by DDA:
The DDA had imposed the requirement of a municipal license to manage the large number of applications. However, the learned single Judge and the Division Bench found this condition to be arbitrary and unreasonable. The DDA's policy was inconsistent, as some applicants without valid licenses were allotted plots, while others were not. The Court directed the DDA to re-examine the cases based on consistent criteria.

Separate Judgments:

M/s. Vijay Steel Products:
The DDA's appeal was dismissed. The Court noted that the DDA had contradictory stands-prosecuting the party for operating in a non-conforming area while rejecting its application for not being in a non-conforming area.

Kimat Baldev Chhiber:
The DDA's appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the party had a valid municipal license from June 18, 1975, as evidenced by a letter from the MCD.

M/s. Chawla Sons (Regd.):
The DDA's appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the first municipal license issued to the party had not been duly considered by the Committee.

Other Cases:
The appeals of the DDA in the cases of M/s. Ambitious Enterprises, M/s. Chopra Dying Industries, M/s. Basant Parkash Electric & Co., Raj Brothers, R. K. Chandrabhan Multani, Joytosma Export, M/s. Dolly Toys International, and Satish Chander were allowed. The orders of the High Court were set aside, and the writ petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment addressed multiple issues related to the DDA's rejection of plot allotment applications, the requirement of municipal licenses, the application of Nazul Rules, and the inconsistencies in the DDA's allotment criteria. The Court upheld the High Court's decisions in some cases while dismissing the appeals in others, emphasizing the need for consistent and reasonable criteria for plot allotment.