Summary
By an order dated 13.3.1990 the Supreme Court directed the Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.) to grant conditional approval to the respondent-Company's (D.C.M.) scheme pertaining to the development of mills land measuring 63 acres for construction of flatted factories and residential complex subject to removal of objections raised by Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority. The matter could not be finalised by the parties since the DDA took certain objections to the scheme:(a) that the Delhi Cloth Mills should file a modified plan so as to conform to the Master Plan of the year 2001; (b) the legal proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court proceeded on the wrong assumption that the entire 63 acres of land was owned by the Delhi Cloth Mills whereas the DCM owns only 52 acres of land while the balance 11 acres was owned by the DDA which is partly on lease and partly in trespass with the Delhi Cloth Mills; and (c) the grant of permission by the DDA vide its resolution No. 26 dated 1.2.83 does not ipso facto mean that it had given up its rights or title to the lease hold lands or that it had regularised the possession of the trespassed upon land with the Delhi Cloth Mills. The respondent-Company filed applications for direction in this Court.
Disposing the applications, this Court,HELD: 1. The D.D.A. stands directed by this Court to grant to the D.C.M. approval, even though conditional, and the D.C.M. stands impliedly directed and is duty bound to remove the objections raised by the D.D.A. This Court had endorsed by means of this directive the already known views of the Delhi High Court towards restoring resolu- 591tion of the D.D.A. dated February 1, 1983, whereby the scheme as given by the Delhi Cloth Mills was approved in terms thereof. The approval came from the D.D.A. at a time when the Master Plan of the year 1962 was operative and the one of the year 2001 was not existent, and if at all existent in an embryonic stage. The law governing the subject and the rules and regulations then in vogue and applicable were deemingly kept in view and applied by the D.D.A. in the approval of the scheme. To whittle down the effect of that resolution on the emergence of the new Master Plan of the year 2001, made applicable after the orders of this Court would, at the present stage, if insisted upon be spelled out as a step to undermine the orders of this Court.Such an objection by the D.D.A. when raised before March 13, 1990, the day when the Supreme Court passed its judgment, was untenable in law and the D.D.A. should have known it before putting such on objection to use. Therefore, the first objection of the D.D.A. is repelled and it is directed to stick to the position as per Master Plan as existing on February 1. 1983. [594 D-G]2. The objection of the D.D.A. with regard to the wrong impression of the ownership of the land is valid substantially. It is the admitted case of the parties that the scheme pertains to 63 acres of land which the Delhi Cloth Mills while applying for sanction claimed to own and one of the considerations in passing the resolution dated February 1,1983 ex facie was the D.D.A. being impressed by a private entrepreneur coming forward with a scheme with such a large chunk of land. The D.D.A. when engaged in examining and sanctioning the proposal was justified on proceeding on the supposition of facts given by the Delhi Cloth Mills as true, and in processing the same cannot be said to have surrendered its ownership rights qua land measuring 11 acres. It cannot be assumed that by upholding the resolution dated February 1, 1983, the Delhi High Court, or Supreme Court, had acknowledged Delhi Cloth Mills as the owner of 63 acress of land involved in the scheme or that the right of ownership of the D.D.A. over about 11 acres of land stood extinguished by such exercise. Therefore, the said resolution cannot trample the rights of D.D.A. as owner over 11 acres of land when the respective leases reserve to the D.D.A. the right of resumption, and in lease expiring by efflux of time the option not to renew. The scheme approved must thus of necessity be denoted to that effect as the objection of the D.D.A. in that regard and to that extent is valid and tenable. But the Delhi Cloth Mills can still steer through its project in its owned 52 acres, even though in a truncated form and submit an amended plan. The scheme in the modified form would have to be brought in, not a new but as a substitute for the original scheme and that scheme would register its birth, legitimacy and binding force as of the original 592scheme.[594H, 595 A-D, E-F, 597 F, 598 D]3-Company's relationship with the D.D.A. is that of a lessee and lessor. Out of 10 leases one is perpetual in nature and the remaining leases are short durated. Under the terms of the perpetual lease unless the D.D.A. grants approval to the change of user as asked and reconstruction, the Delhi Cloth Mills has no such deemed right or privilege ignoring the covenants and the terms of the lease. Therefore, it cannot be said that the resolution has the automatic effect of the D.D.A. having granted change of user, consciously or impliedly, or vesting any right in that regard to the Delhi Cloth Mills. [597 D-F, 596 E]See the full content of this document
Extract
Delhi Development Authority VS. Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. And Ors.
PETITIONER: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs.RESPONDENT: DELHI CLOTH MILLS LTD. AND ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1991BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M.BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M.MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)CITATION: 1991 SCR (2) 590 1991 SCC (3) 277JT 1991 (2) 374 1991 SCALE (1)839ACT: Delhi Cloth Mills-Scheme for redevelopment of the mills area-Supreme Court's direction to the Delhi Development Authority to grant conditional approval to the scheme subject to removal of objections raised by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority- Objections by DDA-Validity of-Directions given by Supreme Court.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 4,5,6 and 7 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1401 & 1402 of 1990.From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.1987 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P No. 2687 of 1986.Kapil Sibal,...
See the full content of this document