9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had applied in terms of public notice dated February 8, 1976 and they had also deposited the earnest money and hud further paid 30% of premium as per the subsequent notice issued in September, 1976. 4. The rejection of the request of the appellants for allotment of plots was principally on two grounds : (1) the applicants were not having licences under Section 4(6) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and (2) Rule 6 (v) of the Delhi Development. Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (for shot 'Nazul Rules') also required the applicants to be possessed of municipal licence. Both these objections of the DDA did not find favour either with the learned single Judge or the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeals. So these appeals by DDA. 5. Notice dated February 8, 1976 informed all concerned of the decisions of the DDA to the industries functioning in non confirming areas of the areas which were under acquisition for various public purposes to obtain land in the conforming industrial areas which had been developed by the DDA in different localities in Delhi in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan. The applicants were required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said sections, Sub-sections, clauses, provisos or other provisions, shall be punishable (i) with fine which may extend to the amount, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to the period, specified in that behalf in the third column of the said Table or with both; and (ii) in the case of a continuing contravention or failure, with an additional fine which may extend to the amount specified in the fourth column of that Table for every day during which such contravention of failure continues after conviction for the first such contravention or failure. If we refer to Twelfth Schedule as mentioned in the section, the punishment is as under: Rule 6(v) of the Nazul Rules is as under: 6(v) to industrialists or owners and occupiers of warehouses who are required to shift their industries and warehouses from non-conforming areas to conforming area under the Master Plan. or whose land is acquired or is proposed to be acquired under the Act; Provided that the size of such industrial plot shall be determined with reference to the requirement of the industry or warehouses set up or to be set up in accordance with the plants and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation required was the details of the municipal licence if the applicant was holding one. It held that holding of a municipal licence could not be a mandatory condition for allotment of plot. February 1976 notice also did not require that the applicants who wanted shifting of their industries from non-conforming area should be holder of valid municipal licences. The Division Bench also observed that it was not disputed by the DDA that the petitioners whose writ petitions had been allowed by the learned single Judge had applied for the industrial licences from the MCD and that the same were granted to them with retrospective effect covering the dates when the applications were made by them for allotment of plots and that therefore in either view, the contention of DDA based on possession of municipal licences could not merit consideration. The Division Bench then examined Rule 6 (v) of the Nazul Rules and was of the opinion that it did not postulate any condition that Nazul land could be allotted at pre-determined rates only to persons having municipal licences in respect of the industrial undertakings. The Division Bench held as under: According to the above Rules, land c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to be made amongst the industries who were operating in non-conforming areas. To us it appears that the condition imposed by the DDA for allotment of industrial plot to a person who was having a valid licence under the DMC Act was neither arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. A person who is running a trade without a valid licence under Section 416 of the DMC Act is committing an offence which is a continuing offence and he cannot be put at the same pedestal with a person who is law abiding and is having a valid licence. Otherwise it will be putting a premium on illegality. That condition of holding of valid MCD licence imposed by DDA would be legal even if the number of plots available is more than the applicants. It is not material if the notice inviting applications was silent on this aspect of the mailer and the application form which was prescribed used the words if any as mentioned above. It was submitted on behalf of the DDA that due to the pressure of the industries which had been running in the non-conforming areas temporary scheme for their continuance until their eviction was announced in 1982 by the MCD and thereunder ad hoc licences were granted to such industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found to be unsustainable. The Court also directed filing of the policy of the allotment. In pursuant thereto an affidavit of Ms. Asma Manzar, Director (Lands), Delhi Development Authority was filed. 12. Ms. Asma Manzar, Director (Lands) DDA was also a member of the Committee which had submitted its report earlier and examined the objections of the respondents subsequently also which had been filed with reference to the report. In the present affidavit Ms. Asma Manzar has filed a precise regarding the policy of allotment of industrial plots to the applicants who had deposited earnest money in response to the press advertisement issued in 1976. It was decided by the DDA that all those applicants who had deposited on time 30% of the premium be allotted, if eligible otherwise, industrial plots. The eligible conditions as we find from the record were (1) the prospective allottee should have a valid municipal licence under Section 416 of the MCD Act on the date of the application for allotment of plot and (2) the industry should be existing in a non-conforming area. On these basis the applications were scrutinised on representation being made. Cases of 115 parties out of 299 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to conforming areas under the Master Plan. It is correct that some of the respondents were granted municipal licences under ad hoc licensing policy, 1982 from a retrospective date and it would appear, licence fee has also been charged from the back date. DDA had not accepted these ad hoc licences as per condition of its policy there should be a valid municipal licence on the date of the application. It has been pointed out that those parties who wanted ad hoc licences had to give an indemnity bond. This ad hoc licensing policy was issued by the MCD on consideration by the Delhi Administration that at length the problem of industrial units functioning in non-conforming areas unauthorisedly without any licence and had suggested that the units set up before August 15, 1982 which are no! obnoxious and hazardous should be granted licence in terms and conditions finalised and conveyed in this behalf. In the indemnity bond there had to be a specific averment that the person was running factory without a proper licence from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as required under the Sections 416/417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Another stipulation was that the person wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that it was not located in a non-conforming area and also prosecuting it on the ground that it was running its industry in a non-conforming area. The appeal against Vijay Steel Products has to be dismissed. 17. In the case of Kimal Baldev Chhiber we find that he was granted L-4 licence in 1968 Central Excise Rules framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the manufacture of goods liable to Central duty of excise . It is claimed in the affidavit filed by Mr. K. B. Chhiber that he was granted municipal licence to run his industry with effect from 18-6-75 which was in pursuance of application dated 17-10-1975. There is a letter of February 24, 1977 of the MCD to M/s. Saraswati Cable Corporation (proprietor Mr. K. B. Chhiber) requiring it to deposit a sum of ₹ 5569 on or before February 28, 1977 toward the licence fee with a warning that legal action would be taken and sanction withdrawn in case any default was made. This letter would justify the stand of Mr. Chhiber that MCD had issued a licence under Section 416 of the MCD with effect from June 18, 1975. The appeal of the DDA against M/s. K. B. Chhiber also does not merit consideration and it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
