Narender Kumar and Others vs D.S.I.I.D.C. Ltd. and Another

The impugned order dated 14TH December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellants and several others has already been upheld in Bhawana-II (Bhorgarh) Industrial Relocation Plot Owner''s Asscn. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. LPA No. 920/2010, decided on 24th December, 2010. The said order reads as under:

LPA 920/2010 & CM 23221/2010

Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 7768/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition. It is pertinent to mention that by the said writ petition, the Petitioner had challenged the demand/cost determined by the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (for short "DSIIDC").

Mr. Prasoon Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the balance 50% of the cost of industrial plot determined by the DSIIDC was highly arbitrary, exorbitant and contrary to the cost determined by the Respondents in the minutes of meeting held on 6th August, 2009. He further submitted that the cross-subsidy towards categories such as Economically Weaker Section (EWS) had been illegally added in the cost demanded by DSIIDC. Mr. Prasoon Kumar placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in P.N. Verma and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, .

Having heard the parties and having perused the paper book, we find that the cost of ` 15,566/- per sq. mtr. determined by DSIIDC is far lower in comparison to the market rate of ` 36,469/- per sq. mtr. as well as to the circle rate of ` 27,400/- per sq. mtr. determined by the Government of NCT of Delhi. We further find that the Respondent- DSIIDC had determined the aforesaid cost in pursuance to a circular dated 17th August, 2010 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Consequently, the reliance on minutes of meeting dated 06th August, 2009 is misconceived.

In our opinion, the judgment in P.N. Verma (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case a condition had been stipulated in the letter of allotment that the cost mentioned therein was tentative and subject to change depending on actual cost of development of the industrial plot and directions issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Further, in the present case the policy of price fixation or cost factor has not been amended, unlike what was done in P.N. Verma (supra).

In fact, on a perusal of the paper book we find that the component of cross-subsidy towards EWS has been added for providing facilities to workmen who are going to be employed by industrialists, like the Appellant, under the relocation scheme. Consequently, in our view, the price determined by the DSIIDC is both fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the present appeal and application are dismissed but with no order as to costs.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has, however, submitted that the aforesaid order deals only with the cross subsidy towards EWS component which has been added to the cost and does not deal with some other aspects raised in the present appeal. It is submitted that there is a proposed legislation which is pending notification regarding payment of corpus fund. It is submitted that the proposed enactment has not been notified and Rules have not been formulated and, therefore, future maintenance costs @ Rs. 1000/- per sq.mtr as demanded is illegal. We do not find any merit in the said contention. The said amount has been demanded towards cost of maintenance. Demand has been made as per policy decision and not under any specific enactment. In paragraph 23 of the judgment dated 14th December, 2010 it is recorded that 2.5% of the land value towards annual maintenance is not been charged but if the maintenance fund is found to be inadequate in future, a further lump sum amount may be charged.

The question of discrimination has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 17 to 21 of the impugned judgment. We do not find any legal error or mistake in the said reasoning of the learned single Judge.

The present appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no orders as to costs.