Kishan Singh v. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation & Anr.

1. The stand taken by respondent-DSIDC is that the petitioner’s industrial unit is located in Nai Basti, Anand Parbhat, an area which is slated for in situ regularization. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to alternative allotment of an industrial plot under the relocation scheme. This aspect was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in DSIDC versus Naresh Gupta, 128 (2006) DLT 777(DB), wherein the policy decision not to allow industrial plots under the relocation scheme to units located in Anand Parbhat, Samaipur Badli and Shahdara areas, was upheld. It was observed that as per the policy decision, units located at Anand Parbhat, Samaipur Badli and Shahdara areas are covered under the redevelopment scheme under the Master Plan of Delhi 2001 for in situ regularization. Challenge by the owners of 2009:DHC:4366 WPC NO.9141/2007 Page 2 industrial units located in areas meant for in situ regularization was rejected holding that the authorities had not arbitrarily changed the policy and no vested right in spite of payment received had accrued. It was observed by the Division Bench as under:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had made full payment of the alternative plot and some others who were WPC NO.9141/2007 Page 3 operating industrial units at the said locations have been allotted industrial plots under the relocation scheme.

3. Respondent-DSIDC in their additional affidavit filed on 10th February, 2009 has explained that process for release of possession of plots commenced in November, 2001 and at that time there were no specific guidelines with regard to Samaipur Badli, Anand Parbhat and Shahdara industrial areas. It is stated that location-wise checks were not made to ascertain whether a particular unit was within or outside in situ areas and, therefore, errors and mistakes have been made in some cases. In paragraph 6 of the additional affidavit, it is pointed out that except in the case of M/s Vishkarma Jobs, five other industrial units mentioned by the petitioner fall outside boundary of the industrial area of Anand Parbhat. It is stated that in the case of M/s Vishkarma Jobs, possession of the plot has been given inadvertently and by mistake.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the factual averments made by DSIDC in paragraph 6 of the additional affidavit. I need not dilate and go deeper into this aspect as the respondents have already taken a policy decision not to allow industrial plots under relocation scheme in case an industry is located in an area slated for in situ regularization at Anand Parbhat, Samaipur Badli or Shahdara areas. The said policy should be followed uniformly and consistently. However, mistakes and errors made by the respondents in making allotment WPC NO.9141/2007 Page 4 contrary to the policy, cannot confer any legal right on the petitioner and does not entitle the petitioner to invoke Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A similar contention was also raised before the Division Bench in the case of Naresh Kumar (supra) and was rejected with the following observations:-

5. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him. The amount will be refunded along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the amount was received with option to the petitioner to permit the respondents to retain earnest money in case he wants to keep his application for allotment of plot alive and wait for further availability of plots/property. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J. OCTOBER 21, 2009 VKR