Firoj Ahmed v. Dsidc and Anr

ORDER ,h

26.L0.2010 cM No. 14195 of 2010 (exemption) in w.P. (c) 714312010 CM i.qo. t+198 of 2010 (exemption) in W.p. (C) 214+/2010 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. CMs 14193/10 (stav) & 14194/10 (direciions) in W.P.(O 714312010 W.P.(c) Nos.7743/2070 & 7144/2010 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. Y CMs. 14196/10 (stav) & 14198/10 (directions) in W.P.(O 714412010

¶1The challenge in each of the writ petitions is to a demand raised by the Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructtue Development Corporation Ltd. ('DSIIDC') requiring each of the Petitioners to deposit cost of the plots allotted to them admeasuring 100 sq. m. in Sector-E, Bawana-Il, Bhorgah, @ < rc,5661-per sq. m. The contention is that the cost originally commturicated when the applications were invited way back in 1996 was { 3,000/- per sq. m. and, therefore, charging of cost lnore than five times ihe original cost is wholly arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶2This Court finds that the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters involving fixation of price by the authorities for land is narrow. In Kavita Ahuja v. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (decision dated 16ft Febnrary 2010 in Civil Appeal No. 2192 12010 etc.) the Supreme Court was considering the challenge to the action of the DSIIDC in chargin gT 4,200/- persq. m. for plots in Bawana Industrial area,< 5,4001-per sq. m. for plots in the Industrial estate at Narela, Jhihnil and Badli and { 7,5601-per sq. m. for plots in Patparganj Industrial area. A Single Judge of this Court had set aside the demand for tlre increased cost on the ground that the DSIIDC failed to show that it had undertaken any development activity or incurred any expenditure loss for the plots. This was reversed by the Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 22nd Febnrary 2008. The Division Bench upheld the action of the DSIIDC of charging < 7,7761' W.P.(c) Nos.7743/2070 & 7744/2070 ) per sq. m. for the plots at Narela. This judgment was chailenged in the Supreme Cotrt and the order of the Division Bench of this Court was upheld. In para 13, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under: ..13. The price of Rs. 54001-per sqm fixed in 2001 is not disputed by the allottees. Having regard to the interest on the investrnent by way of financing cost, overheads and other factors, if the policy of the NCT.of Delhi is to increase the price every year by 20oA, it cannot be stated that the said increase is unreasonable or arbitrary. Having regard to the fact that the lands are being continuously acquired and developed and allotted, it will be very difficult to calculate the actual costs at any giving point of time. So long as the corporation has shown that it had adopted a reasonable method of fixation of allotment prices and has asserted that price fixation is on a 'no profit no loss' basis, the price is noti open for dealt with the issue appropriately and has rightly upheld the price of Rs.77761-per sq.m."

¶3This Cogrt finds that, in principle, the Supreme Court declined in the to interfere with the enhanced cost dernanded by the DSIIDC in the Narela cases on account of several factors.

¶4Even, in these cases, at the time of inviting application in 1996, the DSIIDC had made it clear that: "5. Estimated cost of indlstrial fTat/plot the estirnated cost of one flatted factory shall be around Rs. 7 lacs and that the industrial plot shall be approx' Rs. 3000/- per sqga.re rneter. These are estimated figrrres and are subject to change depending upon the cost of acquisition, constnrction/development, location of flatted factory W.P.(c) Nos.7743/2070 & 7144/2010 Y 1* complexes/industrial area, other inputs etc."

¶5The Petitioners could not have been in doubt that the above cost was tentative and subject to further upward revision from time to time.

¶6There are no judicially manageable standards to enable this Court to determine whether the charging of { 15,566 l-per sq. m. for a plot at Bhorgah is arbitrary or unreasonable. Learned counsel for the Respondents informs this Court that the cost revision was based on several factors and that the figrre was arrived at after an elaborate exercise, records for which are available with the Respondents. Be that as it rnay, given the judgment of the Supreme Court rn Kuvita Ahuiu, it is not possible for this Court to interfere in the matter of enhancement of the costs for the indusfial plots at Bhorgah is Bawana Industrial Area. ?. There is no rnerit in either of the petition and both are dismissed as such but, in the circurnstance, with no order as to costs. The pending applications are also dismissed. S.MURALTDHAR, J ocroBER 26, 2o1o ak W.P.(c) Nos. 7143/2010 & 7144/2010

,G $-*INTHEHIGHCOURToFDELHIATNEwDELHI'.''.|. JI + w.P.(o 714312010 MOI{D JAAN "" Petitioner Through : Mr' J.K. GuPta, Advocate' versus DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL & INIiRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANR Through :Ms. Anusuya sut*un, mt"Hfln R-l. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for R-2' *1 w.P.(c) 7144120tti FIROJ AHMED ""' Petitioner Through : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate. VETSUS DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANR ..... ResPondents Through : Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Advocate for R'l. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for R-2' CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR