Back
1991 Supreme(Del) 550
High Court Of Delhi
LOHA UDYOG - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Civil Writ 557 of 1988
Decided On : 10/11/1991
ANIL KHER, P.DEVAN
The principle of promissory estoppel can be applied to create a right in favor of a person who has acted on a promise made by another person, even if the promise is not legally binding.
Headnote:
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 7(3) - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE PLOT - WITHDRAWAL OF OFFER - LEGALITY - COURT'S DIRECTIONS TO DDA TO ALLOT PLOT AT RESERVE PRICE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, M/s. Loha Udyog, challenged the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) order withdrawing the offer of allotment of an alternative plot made to them. DDA claimed that the petitioner had not vacated the plot at Motia Khan and had not completed ten years of occupation immediately preceding the eviction order. The petitioner argued that they had been in occupation for more than 10 years and had paid damages as assessed by the Estate Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been in occupation of the plot at Motia Khan for more than 10 years immediately preceding the eviction and had paid damages as demanded by the DDA. The court held that the DDA's withdrawal of the offer of allotment was arbitrary and illegal and that the petitioner was entitled to an alternative plot at the reserve price.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had been in occupation of the plot at Motia Khan for more than 10 years immediately preceding the eviction order? 2. Whether the petitioner had paid damages as demanded by the DDA? 3. Whether the DDA's withdrawal of the offer of allotment was arbitrary and illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of promissory estoppel, holding that the DDA's offer of allotment created a right in favor of the petitioner and that the DDA was estopped from going back on its promise. The court also held that the DDA's withdrawal of the offer of allotment was discriminatory and illegal and that the petitioner could not be deprived of his right to enforce the DDA to fulfill its promise.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the DDA to allot to the petitioner a plot at the reserve price in accordance with the Scheme formulated by resolution dated 11th October, 1977.
( 1 ) THE Writ Petition was allowed vide order dated 21st November, 1990. By this we are giving the reasons for the same.
( 2 ) M/s. Loba Udyog in this writ petition has assailed the order of the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called the ODA) dated 25th February, 1988 thereby withdrawing the offer of allotment of alternative plot already made to the petitioner vide letter dated 16th July, 1985.
( 3 ) BRIEFLY the facts of the Case are that petitioner, M/s. Loha Udyog, a partnership firm stated to be M/s. Delhi Iron and Steel Stockists (CS.) Association Private Limited carrying on business of Iron and Steel at Motia Khan better known as Loha Mandi. Petitioner has been in occupation of Plot No 10186 measuring 287 square yards in Motia Khan, Delhi, since 1965. The business of Iron and Steel was carried on the said plot after raising pacca construction thereon. Petitioner also got electricity connection and was assessed to sales tax for the business being carried out at the said premises. In the year 1975 actual removal of unautorised occupation of the plots at Motia Khan, which was a non-confirming area, was started. Some of the persons were not allotted plots and therefore they filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1121/75 being Surajmal and Others v. Delhi Development Authority. Pursuant to the same, Delhi Development Authority passed aresolution on 11th October. 1977 regarding the manner-in-which the allotment was to be made. Earlier policy was that the person who were removed and were paying damages should be given alternative allotment at a reserve price. Whereas those who were not assessed to damages should be given the alternative plot at the average auction rate. The new policy classified the persons into two categories namely, the persons against whom proceedings were pending for assessment of damages but not final order had been passed and secondly, those against whom no such proceedings were Initiated and were in occupation thereof. The resolution reads as under:
"resolved that the evictions of both the categories, mentioned in para 2 of the agenda-note, be allotted alternative plots in reserve price , provided the adduce satisfactory proof of their having occupied land at the Loha Mandi (Motia Khan) Clearance Site during 10 years, immediately preceding their eviction and also pay damages, plus an interest of 12. 5% per annum thereon for the same. "because of this resolution even those persons who bad actually not paid damages but had some other proof of their land in Motia Khan during the last 10 years were offered the allotment of land at reserve price with the stipulation that they have to pay damages plus interest for the period.
( 4 ) DDA formulated this scheme with the intention to rehabilitate and give alternative plots to the occupants of Motia Khan where the business of Iron and Steel was being carried. Motia Khan was not a confirming area and therefore DDA decided to shift the occupants of non-confirming area to a confirming zone as per that scheme. They were to be shifted and provided alternative plots in Naraina Ware-Housing Scheme. According to petitioner he was a member of the iron Merchants Association. He was in occupation of the aforesaid plot at Motia Khan much before the formulation of the Scheme. But the DDA failed to allot alternative plot to the petitioner as per its declared public policy. Instead of allotting plots to occupants of Motia Khan, DDA decided to dispose of those plots at Naraina in public auction. Aggrieved by this action of DDA members of the Iron Merchants Association filed writ petitions. Counsel for the DDA made a statement that those plots would not be auctioned. On the basis of the said statement made by the Counsel for the DDA. the auctions were cancelled. That petition was ultimately withdrawn on account of the assurance given by the Delhi Development Authority. After protracted discussions and approaches made by the petitioner, respondent allotted an alternative p
