M.C.MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. RE: M/S. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 01-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
M.C.MEHTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. RE: MIS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT 
AUTHORITY 
MARCH I, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, UMESH C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India : A11icle 32 : 
·Public Interest Litigation-Pollution-Hazardous and noxious industrial 
units-Direction for their closure & relocation and surrender of plots by order 
dated 10.5.96 passed by Supreme Coun-Non surrender of-Interlocutory 
application by DDA for clarification of the said order with reganl to queries 
raised by the industries-Plea of industries thatfactum of surrender would not 
arise since they were prepared to restan and relocate the industries within the 
ambits of the Master Plan and l.onal Development Plan-96 applications for 
review in this regard have already been dismissed by Supreme Coun from time 
to time-Held, industries cannot be allowed at this stage to contend and take 
recourse to the rules to avoid surrender of land-Surrender of land-Directions 
Issued-Delhi Development Act, I 957. 
Land belonging to an industry bifurcated by a road for factory use and 
for residential purposes respectively-Supreme Court directing only the factory 
area to be surrendered-The onler being in the peculiar facts of the case, 
cannot have universal application-Held, the said onler does not in any way 
dilute the mandate of the onler dated I0.5.96 directing surrender of the entire 
land. 
Land-Surrender of-Held, must be surrendered with approach road-
However,_ if the approach road is not owned by the owner, then surrender shall 
take effect on 'as is where is basis'-Surrendered land directed to be 1~leased 
from encumbrance-If such land not made free from encumbrance within five 
years, then the land which the owner was otherwise entitled to retain would 
stand vested with DDAfor the use and need of the society. 
Minimum plot area-Surrender of. by an industrial unit-Held, those 
required to surrender up 100 sq. meter of land, need not surrender since such 
H 
a tiny bit of land cannot be utilised for any need of the society. 
234 
--
• 
·-
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. & ORS. RE' M?S DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 235 
Industrial units having restm1ed their industries after removing/modify-
A 
ing the objectionable use process and having obtained clearances from various 
departments-Held,, if the Mast" Plan permits establishment of such indus-
tries, it would not be necessary for such units to surrender the land-However, 
those having not started such industries with appropriate clearance or those 
which have not relocated the hazardous indust1ies, are bound by the direction 
requiring them to surrendei: 
Certain industries having closed prior to the order dated 10.5.96-Their 
names still appearing in the list of industries to be closed down as mentioned 
in various orders of the Supi-eme Court-Held, it would not be permissible for 
such industries as have not appeared in cou11 or put any objection, to put up 
the plea that they were closed down p1ior to order dated 10.5.96 and claim an 
equitable right of not surrende1ing. 
Industrial units running in rerited premises~-Closure of such industries 
as per orders of Supreme Cou1t-Tenant handing over the rented premises to 
the original owner-Held, oivner in such case bound by the order of surrender 
of land. 
Supreme Court by its order dated 10-5-96 on a petition filed as a 
public interest litigation Jirected surrender of plots upon relocation of 'H' 
categories industries. However, even after a lapse of more than four years, 
the said order was not complied with. The present Interlocutory Applica-
tion was filed by the DDA for clarification of the order dated 10-5-96 with 
regard to the queries raised by the industries and for issuance of appropri-
ate directions thereof. 
On behalf of the DDA, it was contended that the present application 
had been moved for certain clarification since there had been large scale 
unscrupulous withholding of delivery of possession; that there was a neces-
sity for clarification by reason of proposed transfer of land locked areas 
which could not possibly be utilised by reason of non-availability of an 
entry thereto; that since a large number of proposed surrender were "ith 
encumbrances, question of obtaining possession thereof upon clearance of 
the encumbrances by the DDA would not arise since that would foist an 
additional financial burden or liability beyond the capacity of the DDA to 
, 
meet. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
On behalf of the entrepreneu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.