Savita Devi v. D.S.I.D.C. & Anr

REVA KHETRAPAL, J FEBRUARY 19, 2008 nm

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 50/2008 and CM Nos.1618-1619/2008 (stay) (delay) % Date of decision: 19.2.2008 SAVITA DEVI ..... Appellant Through Mr.R.P. Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Rakesh Mahajan, Mr.Prabhat Ranjan and Mr.Sheetesh Khanna, Advocates versus D.S.I.D.C. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Ms.Monica Sharma, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Amiet Andely, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ (oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6th August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and also the order dated 18th September, 2007 whereby a review application filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. While dismissing the writ petition, it was held that there is no cogent and sufficient evidence brought on record by the appellant to indicate that the unit of the appellant was functional in the true sense of the term till the relevant cut off date i.e. 31st December, 1996 in order to get the benefit of allotment of alternative land. 3. The appellant herein alleged that she was having a unit functioning at the premises and that she had to close the said unit pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court some time in April and July, 1996. The orders of the Supreme Court passed in April and July, 1996 indicate that all the units / premises carrying on industrial and impermissible activities in residential and non-conforming areas were required to cease operations w.e.f. 31st December, 1996 and that they were eligible to industrial plots / premises to be alloted by Government agencies including the DSIDC. 4. In order to implement the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court, a scheme was evolved by the DSIDC in terms of which the existing units, which were not conforming with the Master Plan and other controlling norms, but desired to have allotment, were required to stop their activities while applying for an alternative plot. The appellant submitted an application and as it appears the said request was also processed by the DSIDC. Our attention is also drawn to the letter dated 23rd October, 2000, whereby the DSIDC had informed the appellant about the allotment of a plot of land to her unit measuring 100 sq. mtrs. at Bawana. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of allotment, the amount required to be deposited was also deposited by the appellant. Subsequently, however, the appellant was informed that the allotment of land had been cancelled because the said unit was not functional on the relevant date. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Appellate Committee, who rejected the appeal of the appellant, consequent to which the writ petition was filed, which was heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order dismissing the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, a review application was filed, which also met the same fate, and consequently, the present appeal is filed on which we have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone through the records, which were placed before us. 5. Our attention was drawn by the counsel appearing for the appellant to the letter of allotment dated 23rd October, 2000. He has also drawn our attention to the licence given to the unit of the appellant and relying on the same it was submitted that the appellant's unit was functional in 1996 and thereafter it closed its operations from the said area in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. It is also submitted that the inspections carried out in 1998 and 2005 were only an eye wash and such reports of inspection carried out in 1998 and 2005 cannot determine as to whether or not the unit of the appellant was functional upto 1996. Accordingly, it is submitted that the or