DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. versus AMBITIOUS ENTERPRISES AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 50 · Decided: 09-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. 
~ 
v. 
j 
AMBITIOUS ENTERPRISES AND ANR. ETC. 
''· 
JULY 9, 1997 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
Town Planni11g: 
Delhi Municipal Corporatio11 Act, 1957, Sectio11 416-Delhi Develop-
IC--
c ment Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul La11d) Rules, 1981, Rule 6(v) ). 
.. 
Allotme11t of altemative i11dustrial plots by DDA in conf ormi11g 
areas-Co11dition that applicants for allotmellts should be possessed of 
municipal lice11ces u11der S.416 of the Act and R. 6(v) 011 the date of filing 
D 
of the application-Co11ditio11 based on govemment policy of allot-
ment-Held, valid and 11ot arbitrmy, unreasonable or bmtio11al-Condition 
: 
would be valid even if it was 11ot imposed for short listing the applicants and 
the 11umber of plots available was more tha11 the applicant~Such conditio11s 
would also be valid even i11 the absence of any 111entio11 about it in the notice 
• 
inviti11g the applicatio11s or eve11 if the presC1ibed application f mm required 
.... 
E i11f onnation about 11umber a11d date of mu11icipal licences, if any held. 
Ad hoc Licencing Policy, 1982--0btai11i11g of temporary lice11ces 
u11de1~Refttsal to allot plots to some 11011-hazardous units who later obtained 
tempormy lice11ces with retrmpective effect on the basis of i11demnity bond 
fttmished by them conte11di11g that they would 1101 claim any altemative site, 
F damages or compensatio11 i11 lieu of (empormy /ice11ces-Held, justified .. 
The Respondents writ petitioners before the High Court were ag-
grieved by the order of the DDA rejecting their applications for allotments 
of plots for which they had applied and deposited 30% of the premium as 
G per the public .notices issued by the DDA. 
The rejection of the request of the allotment of plots was principally 
~---
on two grounds : (1) The applicants were not having licences as required 
under the DMC Act and (2) Rule 6(v) of the Nazul Rules required the 
applicants to be possessed of municipal licences. Both these objections of 
H the DDA did not find favour either with the Single Judge or Division Bench 
50 
-• 
• 
D.D.A v. AMBIDOUS ENTERPRISES 
51 
' 
in LPA. Hence these appeals. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The condition imposed by the DDA for allotment of 
industrial plot to a person who was having a valid licence under the MCD B 
Act was neither arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. A person who is 
running a trade without a valid licence under Section 416 of the MCD Act 
is committing an offence which is a continuing offence and he cannot be 
put on the same pedestal with a person who is law abiding and is having 
a valid licence. Otherwise it will be putting a premium on illegality. That 
condition of holding of valid MCD licence imposed by the DDA would be C 
legal even if the number of plots available is more than the applicants. It 
is' not material if the notice inviting application was silent on this aspect 
of the matter and the application form which was prescribed used the 
words "if any". [57-G-H; 58·A·B] 
2. The parties who were not having municipal licences on the date of 
their respective applications have been barred from getting an industrial 
plot altogether. They are, however, left to fend for themselves either by 
buying an industrial plot in public auction or by private purchase. As per 
D 
the policy of the DDA, it does not allot the industrial plots to them on pre 
determined rates as they fell outside the policy made by it. In terms of this E 
policy it is also not material as to from what time in fact an industrial unit 
had been working • may be much prior to the date of application for 
allotment of industrial plot. The argument that the Nazul Rules came into 
force only on September 26, 1981 but the public advertisement for allot-
ment of plots had been issued much earlier and, therefore, the Nazul Rules F 
would not be applicable does not appear to be sound. No plots had been 
allotted prior to the coming into force of the Nazul Rules and once these 
Rules, which are statutory, came into force no allotment could have been 
made outside and in contravention of those Rules. The relevant part of 
Rule 6(v) will apply to those industrialists who are required to shift their G 
industries from non-conforming areas to conforming areas under the 
Master Plan. It is eorrect that some of the respondents were granted 
municipal licences under Ad hoc Licencing Policy, 1982 from a retrospec-
tive date and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.