Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DELHI CLOTH MILLS LTD. AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1991
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1991 SCR (2) 590 1991 SCC (3) 277
JT 1991 (2) 374 1991 SCALE (1)839
ACT:
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.
HEADNOTE:
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-
591
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
tion 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
592
scheme.[594H, 595 A-D, E-F, 597 F, 598 D]
3. Respondent-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,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
596 E]
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, V.B. Saharya and R.K. Khanna for the
Appellant.
Rajiv Sawhney, Sanjay Anand, Deepak Kumar Thakur, Mrs.
Ameeta Rathore, Kapil Chandra for J.B. Dadachanji & Co. and
R.K. Maheshwari for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
PUNCHHI, J. These are applications for directions in
Civil Appeal Nos. 1401 and 1402 of 1990 decided by us on
March 13, 1990.
For facility of fact situation resort be had to our
judgment dated March 13, 1990. Direction given by to the
D.D.A was meaningful and clear that it shall grant to the
Delhi Cloth Mills conditional approval subject to the
removal of the objections enumerated and extracted in the
judgment, as raised, or such of them as were valid and
tenable in law, after the Delhi Cloth Mills is heard by the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the author of the
objections, and which the D.D.A. had adopted, and the matter
to be formalised forthwith by the D.D.A. and the authorities
connected therewith within a time frame. This has reportedly
met with hurdles necessitating these applications. The
objections may broadly be divided in three parts:
(i) objections which are within the exclusive
domain of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
593
(ii) objections which are exclusively within the
domain of the D.D.A.; and
(iii) objections which are lendingly common to
both, the D.D.A. and the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi overseeing and safeguarding the interests of
each other.
And these objections can also be divided as surmountable and
insurmountable.
The objections, to begin with, as raised by the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and later adopted by the
D.D.A., presently requiring smoothening before us relate to
those which are within the exclusive domain of the D.D.A.
for it is asserted by the applicant Delhi Cloth Mills that
the objections relating to the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi are not insurmountable and those can for the present,
be left alone to be tackled by the applicant without the
intervention of the Court. For this reason neither any
direction is asked at this stage nor is one necessary to the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
The D.D.A. has broadly three objections:
(i) To further the resolution of the D.D.A., dated
February 1, 1983, the Delhi Cloth Mills should file
an amended or modified plan so as to conform to the
Master Plan of the year 2001;
(ii) Since the matter before the Delhi High Court,
as also in this Court, had proceeded on the
assumption that the entire 63 acres of land
involved in the re-development for flatted
factories and residential complex was owned by the
Delhi Cloth Mills, which assumption was wrong, the
Delhi Cloth Mills should confine its plan to about
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
52 acres of land as owned by it as the balance
about 11 acres of land is owned by the D.D.A. which
is either on varied termed leases or in trespass
with the Delhi Cloth Mills. The plan would require
rectification accordingly; and
(iii) The fact of grant of permission vide
resolution of 1-2-1983 did not ipso facto mean that
the D.D.A. had given up its rights on lease hold
lands in accordance with the terms thereof or the
tittle to it or to regularize possession of the
trespassed upon land with the Delhi Cloth Mills.
594
On that basis it is required of the Delhi Cloth Mills to
confine its plans within those 52 acres as owned by it and
by a process of reasoning it is hinted that after providing
for recreational and other necessary facilities, as required
by law, there hardly would remain any land to further the
project.
It has been maintained on behalf of the Delhi Cloth
Mills that the posture of the D.D.A. is obstructive in
nature and a step to flout or undermine the orders of this
Court. It has on the other hand been maintained on behalf
of the retrenched workers that since the settlement arrived
at by them with the Delhi Cloth Mills was beneficial to them
in nature, as a price for closure of the Mill, the posture
of the D.D.A. was indirectly against their interests. They
have prayed for suitable directions so that the benefits
accruing to them by lapse of time may not go dry.
At the outset, we put it beyond any doubt and re-affirm
that 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 as were valid and tenable in law as raised by the
D.D.A. within its domain. Having gone thus far there is no
retreat of it contemplated. It is further to be understood
that this Court had endorsed by means of this directive the
already known views of the Delhi High Court towards
restoring resolution of the D.D.A. dated February 1, 1983,
whereby the scheme as given by the Delhi Cloth Mills was
approved in terms thereof. And obviously 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
existant, and if at all existant in an embryonic stage. The
law governing the object 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 we passed
judgment, was untenable in law and the D.D.A. should have
known it before putting such an objection to use. For this
reason, we repel the first objection of the D.D.A. and
require of it to stick to the position as per Master Plan as
existing on February 1, 1983. This objection is thus
surmounted.
The second objection of the D.D.A. with regard to the
wrong
595
impression of the ownership of the land appears to us to be
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
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. It is significant that nowhere
at that stage, even remotely, or at any stage during the
litigation before the Delhi High Court or this Court, was
the Delhi Cloth Mill’s claim of owning 63 acres of land been
given a serious thought or refuted or put to proof or
testing. One way of looking at it now can be that the Delhi
Cloth Mills misled the D.D.A. in that regard and had the
D.D.A. known that the Delhi Cloth Mills owned only about 52
acres of land the D.D.A. might have resolved differently.
The other view as suggested by the Delhi Cloth Mills is that
the D.D.A. of its own should have counter checked the extent
of the ownership of the land of the Delhi Cloth Mills at the
time of granting sanction. Learned counsel on both sides
have dwelt upon this matter a great deal. We cannot assume
that by upholding resolution dated February 1,1983, the
Delhi High Court, or for that matter this Court, had made or
acknowledged Delhi Cloth Mills as the owner of 63 acres 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. The D.D.A. when engaged in examining and
sanctioning the proposal was justified on proceedings 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. Thus we are clear in arriving at the view that the
said resolution cannot trample the right of D.D.A. as owner
over about 11 acres of land when the respective leases
reserve to the D.D.A. the right of resumption, and in leases
expiring by efflux of time the option not to renew. The
scheme approved must thus of necessity be dented to that
effect as the objection of the D.D.A. in that regard and to
that extent is valid and tenable.
Reservation in that regard appears also to have been
made by the Delhi High Court in its judgment in C.W.P. No.
1281 of 1985 decided on July 22,1988. While dealing with
possibility of a law and order problem, the court relied on
the Delhi Cloth Mill’s management’s affidavit towards
granting statutory compensation to the workers as well as
its undertaking to pay, in some event, additional
compensation. The Delhi Cloth Mills had in the affidavit
stated that the additional compensation shall be payable on
expiry of two years from the date the Delhi Cloth Mills is
allowed by all the concerned authorities
596
including the D.D.A. and Municipal Corporation of Delhi to
redevelop its entire 63 acres of land at Bara Hindu Rao and
Krishan Ganj, in accordance with the user stipulated
therefore under the Master Plan for Delhi dated September
1962. The High Court in judging the stand taken by the
delhi Cloth Mills made the following significant
observations:
"No assurance is extended by any competent
authority to the workmen that the authorities shall
not enforce the Master Plan or shall not insist for
due compliance of the provisions of the Act and the
regulations in the matter of the Mill. It is also
doubtful if any one could opt out of the statutory
provisions."
These observations make it clear that the D.D.A. cannot be
said to have abandoned its right either as a statutory body
or that of the lessor of land on leases held by the Delhi
Cloth Mills by mere passing of the resolution afore-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
mentioned, or correspondingly to have given any right to the
workers.
We have been given the break up of those leases
numbering 10. One of them pertains to 36425 sq. yards(about
7 acres) which is perpetual in nature and is not required to
be renewed except that the rent is revisable after every 25
years. The remaining leases are in comparison short
durated, some of which have expired and others are expiring
in the year 2001. The unexpired period of leases is not
long enough in the context of the project. besides there is
an area which is said to be trespassed upon by the Delhi
Cloth Mills. this area under durated leases and trespass
totals about 4 acres. the Delhi Cloth Mills cannot be
permitted to lay hands on this area as of right to further
the scheme. there a common term in each respective lease
reserving right to the lessor to determine the lease at any
time if the land is required for public purpose in
consideration of the land having been demised free of any
premium. To involve this four acres of land in the scheme
the D.C.M may have to work it out under a different shade
and premise and not from this Court. The objection is thus
insurmountable on this plain.
So far as the perpetual lease is concerned, its purpose
covenants for residential, cultural and recreational
purposes of staff and workers of the lessee and purposes
ancillary thereto, in accordance with the rules and
regulations in force in Delhi under the Municipality Act or
any bye-laws framed by the lessor. It is further covenanted
that for
597
purposes of construction of building the approval of the
lessor in writing is a pre-condition before the start of
the construction, and further no alteration or addition in
the building as approved by the lessor either externally or
internally can be made without first obtaining the
permission of the lessor in writing. Besides that if during
the period of lease, it is certified by the Central
Government that the premises are required for the purposes
of the Central Government or any other public purpose, the
lessor shall be entitled to take possession of the land
together with all building structures etc. with certain
consequences. It is thus plain and evident that even in the
case of perpetual lease enormous residual control is left
with the lessor who alone can accord permission to construct
building for the specified purpose for residential, cultural
and recreational purpose of the staff and workers of the
Mill and purposes ancillary thereto, and on frustration of
such purpose has the further right to treat the lease to
have become void if the land is used for any purpose other
than for which the lease was granted, not being the purpose
subsequently approved by the lessor. Thus 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. Thus it cannot be suggested that the resolution
afore-mentioned 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.
Here as well the D.C.M. would have to work out its plans
with the D.D.A. under the terms of the lease without any
further mandate from this Court in this regard. This
objection also is insurmountable in the presence of the void
clause.
Yet all is not lost for the Delhi Cloth Mills. It can
still steer through its project in its owned 52 acres, even
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
though in a truncated from and submit an amended plan. On
the other hand its relationship with the D.D.A. being that
of a lessee and lessor permits a meaningful dialogue seeking
extensions of lease periods, and change of permissive user
in respect of 11 acres of land. It can make attractive
suggestions to the D.D.A. for setting up cultural,
educational, recreational and other facilities etc. at the
expense of the Delhi Cloth Mills, if the project is to
remain of the 63 acre size. It is the case of Delhi Cloth
Mills that if it is allowed to involve the said 11 acres of
land, the project would be better and it is prepared to pay
any charges as are known to law to keep it as part of the
project of the original size. Be that as it may we are no
experts to opine whether a 52 acre project would be more
viable or better or a 63 acre one. But since the project
has in terms of our order dated March 13, 1990 to go on, the
D.D.A.
598
may if asked examine the suggestions. That is their field
and not ours to decide.
Before concluding this Order, we cannot help remarking
that both parties, i.e., the D.C.M. and the D.D.A. have to
share mutually the blame for the present situation. The
D.C.M. for its cavalier away in having asserted to own 63
acres of land and the D.D.A. in casually, without consulting
its records, passing its Resolution No. 26 dated February 1,
1983 and communicating the same to the D.C.M. on 31-3-1983.
Should the D.C.M. now confine its scheme and project to its
owned 52 acres of land, abandoning any effort to have
included the remaining D.D.A. owned 11 acres of land by
negotiations, and the D.D.A. in not offering on its own, or
otherwise, the said land to the D.C.M., the project as
originally conceived would have to be spruced. It is
evident from the proceedings of the Resolution that as per
Master Plan, 23.14 acres have been earmarked for flatted
factories and 43.39 acres as residential, though the sum
total goes to more than 63 acres. Both these areas include
areas set apart for facilities and amenities enumerated
therein. The respective areas in that event would have to
be reduced keeping in view the ground realities of ownership
and the earmarking in the Master plan. Cuts inevitably may
have to be employed in either area or both. Be that as it
may, the scheme in the modified from 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 scheme. The mandate
in this regard should be clearly understood by the parties
concerned for they are under obligation to responsibly carry
out the directions of this Court dated March 13, 1990, in
all events, and share the burden of it, indeed as doing the
blame.
With these observations, these applications are
disposed of. No Costs.
T.N.A. Applications disposed of.
599