National Building Constn. Corpn v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors

ORDER %

05.02.2016 REVIEW PET. 415/2015 & CM No.17653/2015

¶1The respondent has filed the instant review petition seeking ^ ' • th review of the order dated 7 March, 2008 asserting entitlement to claim consideration for the land for which the lease deed has to be ^ executed in terms thereof.

¶2In my view, the review petition is completely misconceived and misdirected inasmuch as the writ petition has been disposed of in terms of minutes dated 5^*^ March, 2008 (wrongly noted as 5^*^ W.P.(C) 7292/2007 A A May, 2008 in the order dated 7^^ March, 2008 of this court) of the meeting of the parties held under the aegis of the then Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs & Poverty Alleviation, Government of India. This court was not called upon to decide on any aspect of the terms on which the lease deed would be executed. For the same reason, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition is also misconceived.

¶3Ms. Girmy Rautray, learned counsel for the respondent in review petition has vehemently urged that inter alia, the claim of the review petitioner is erroneous inasmuch the NBCC has adequately compensated the review petitioner by giving up 10 acres of land as noted in the minutes dated 5^^ March, 2008, and that it had paid the consideration for the grant of lease of the entire plot of land as back as 1995.

¶4Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner disputes these submissions contending that there was no discussion on the terms of the lease which has to be executed keeping in view the fact that on March, 2008, the NBCC has been permitted to change the land use from running a training centre to commercial use as permitted by the MPD 2020-21 and it has to pay the land consideration as per such user. He further submits that without having any right, title or entitlement thereto, the NBCC has taken into consideration over 10 acres of land from DMRC at a rate of over ?22 lakhs per acre. Other submissions are also pressed. W.P.(C) 7292/2007

¶5On 7^*^ March, 2008, this court was not called upon to consider terms on which the lease deed would be executed by the respondents in favour of the NBCC of the land which was a subject matter of the minutes dated 5^^ March, 2008. Therefore, I refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions pressed by Ms. Ginny J. Rautray, learned counsel for NBCC or Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel for review petitioner.

¶6This review petition as well as application are disposed with the above observations. FEBRUARY 05,2016 aj GITA MITJAI, J W.P.(C) 7292/2007

Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. //- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Writ Petition (C) No.7292/2007 & CMs 13857/2007 & 6a6/2008 Date of decision: 7^*^ March, 2008 M/S NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION ... Petitioners through: Ms. Ginny J. Rautray, Adv. VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondents through: Mr. Vibhu Shankar, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv. with R.C. Ray, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? GITA MITTAL. KOral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a meeting was held under the aegis of the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs & Poverty Alleviation, wherein the matter has been finally resolved. Copy of the minutes dated 5"" May, 2008 has been placed on record. The same records as under:- "While initiating the discussions. Special Secretary (UD) clarified that DMRC is not really involved in the dispute between the Delhi Administration and NBCC and that WP (C) No.7292/2007 Page No. I -1 cc y they are interested only In expediting the construction of tlieir yard in that area. It was further stated that presently the possession of the land (52.46 acres) is with the NBCC. CMD, NBCC, MD, DMRC and Principal Secretary (UD), Delhi Administration expressed their views separately, where after Secretary (UD) resolved the issue as under:- I. Actual land required by DMRC, which is approx. 10 acres for construction of its yard may be transferred to DMRC subject to the condition that the land would not be used for any commercial activcity/purpose. II. GNCTD will be provided with 10 acres of land for meeting residential requirements after the lease deed is signed as per point (iv) below. III. Rest of the land i.e. 32.4 acres (Approx.) will remain with NBCC Ltd. IV Further, GNCTD will sign the Lease Deed with NBCC for the rest of the land to be used as per 'land use' provided in MPD 2021. Secretary (UD) also mentioned that tjiisjgcision oould be brought to the notice of the~~Deihi High Court as a commonly i worked out arrangement taking into account vrious aspects of the issue in hand, on the next date of hearing for further directions of the Hon'ble Court." 2. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner sa.ys-that^the^gri_eyanee of the petitioner would stand satisfied in terms of the above. WP (C) No.7292/2007 PageNo.2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision taken on 5^*" March, 2008, the DMRC shall be permitted to use, occupy and commence its operation on the subject land measuring 10 acres. 4. A prayer is however made that the Govt. of NCT of Delhi be directed to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in a time bound manner. Accordingly, this writ petition and applications are disposed of in terms of the above decision taken in the meeting on S'*' March, 2008. The Govt, of NCT of Delhi shall ensure that necessary steps in terms of the minutes shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the court master of this court. (GITA MITTAL) JUDGE March 07, 2008 A aa ' - ^ * ijelbi .. ■De\b ' t rcr'i t-l? P:- 1" f2o UJ f ) d 0^ c-r] ^ \. 3'A irh'' ''"'■''j] WP (C) No.7292/2007 Page No.3 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + REVIEWPET. 415/2015 & CM No. 17653/2015 in W.P.(C) 7292/2007 NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTN. CORPN Petitioner Through : Ms. Ginny J. Rautray and Ms. Harsha, Advs. fr) versus GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS. .... Respondents Through : Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL