SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals have been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single judge dated 22nd September, 2005 filed by the respondents herein.

( 2 ) WE have perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) THE writ petitions were filed by the respondents when after receiving confirmation of the allotment plots under relocation scheme framed by the government, their eligibility was cancelled and they were not handed over the possession. The stand of the appellant is that the respondents had applied under relocation scheme pursuant to a notice issued in 1996 which was a sequel to the orders passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta case. However, later on in view of the policy decision taken by the Cabinet and communicated to the appellant by the Department of Industries, the eligibility of the respondents to have plot under relocation scheme was cancelled, since they were found ineligible under the policy approved by the Cabinet.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge had come to a conclusion that since the appellant had received the entire sale consideration and the policy of the Cabinet as pleaded by the appellant, was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme court, the eligibility of the appellants could not have been cancelled and the possession of the plot could not have been withheld. The revised policy cannot be applied to the respondents. The directions were given to the appellant to give possession of the plots and to pay interest @ 5% p. a. on the consideration amount received by the appellant from the date the possession was to be handed over. The cost of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded to each respondent, however, it was observed that if possession was handed over within a period of 30 days, the cost would be not payable.

( 5 ) IN M. C. Mehta cases, a series of PILs had been filed by petitioner M. C. Mehta regarding the deteriorating state of affairs in the capital and the Hon ble supreme Court had from time to time passed several orders latest being M. C. Mehta Versus Union of India AIR 2004 SC 4618. In the latest judgment, the hon ble Supreme Court has summerised all orders and directions given from time to time to the DDA, Delhi Administration and the Center.

( 6 ) THE policy based on which the appellant had cancelled the eligibility of respondents is stated in Annexure R-4 ( letter from the Department of DSIDC) which reads as follows:- annexure R-4 department of Industries govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi c. P. O. Building, Kashmera Gate, Delhi-6 dated : 20th July, 1999 in continuation of my D. O. Letter No. AD1 (R )/31/ci/98/2185 dated 08. 7. 99 regarding implementation of the decision in the Cabinet Meeting held on 07. 06. 1999 and 3rd meeting of the High Powered Project Implementation Committee in respect of relocation Scheme . The following important decisions are also brought to your kind notice for necessary action please. (i)The units located in commercial areas should be allowed to continue in the existing location. These cases should not be considered for allotment of plots/flats under the "relocation Scheme". (ii) Service industries such as Atta Chakkis, Dry Cleaners etc. are not to be considered for allotment under "relocation Scheme". (iii)Units located in Anand Parbat, Samaipur Badli and Shahdara areas being considered for the time being as these areas are covered under redevelopment scheme under the Delhi Master Plan 2001. (iv)The units who have applied for industrial plots measuring more than 400 sq. mtrs. will be offered a maximum of only 250 sq. mtrs. (v)The size of the plots recommended should not exceed double the area presently occupied by the unit. However, no such restriction is imposed in case of flats. (vi)Where Municipal Corporation Licence is being relied as proof of establishment, the MCL should be valid at least upto 31. 3. 1995. (vii)Units which are functioning from more than one premises and submitted separate appl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document