DIAMOND FILLING STATION Vs. D D A
LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-169
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 21,2007

DIAMOND FILLING STATION Appellant
VERSUS
D.D.A. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th November, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for a direction to the Delhi Development Authority(for short the DDA) to re-site/re-locate its petrol pump by allotting an appropriate plot.
(2.) Before we deal with the issues raised before us it will be necessary to deal with some of the background facts on the basis of which the present appeal is filed. The appellant was allotted a retail petrol pump outlet on 13.6.1991 as dealer under IBP Company Limited. Initially, the appellant took a plot of land on lease at Village Dhansa for establishing the petrol pump. It is also stated that the said petrol pump became operational and functional from the said plot of land but later on, the Oil Company was of the opinion that the petrol pump was not remunerative. In the meantime the owner of the land was also asking the appellant to vacate the premises. Consequently, the IBP represented to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas for relocation of the petrol pump. The said prayer was considered by the Ministry and thereafter it granted approval on 6.1.1994 pursuant to which the IBP Company Ltd. requested the DDA to allot an alternative plot for re-sitement/relocation of the retail outlet. The appellant alleges that the DDA did not act with promptitude and dithered in taking a decision. Eventually on 15.12.1997, after the appellant met the Lt. Governor, the DDA decided that relocation of the petrol pump and assignment of seniority to the appellant would be taken up on priority basis. The case of the appellant was included in a draw of lots and it was allotted a plot of land in Sector 11, District Centre, Dwarka. The appellant protested the move by letter on 31.8.1998 and requested the DDA to adopt the usual practice of routing the re- sited case through the DDA. The appellant was informed about the allotment of plot at Sector 11, District Centre Dwarka. The IBP Company Ltd. also deposited a sum of Rs.6.5 lakhs under protest with the DDA on 28.4.1999. It is also alleged that the IBP Company Ltd. also requested the DDA to allocate a better site on proper analysis of the potential of the location. It was also contended that the approval for re-sitement was given on 13.5.1994 for a site in South Delhi whereas the site actually was given in West Delhi. After sometime two plots were carved out at Dwarka which were later on given to Indian Oil Corporation and the same was protested by the appellant. The IBP Company Ltd. took the stand that the site allotted was in the inner lanes of the area and was commercially unviable and a considerable investment to the tune of Rs.70 lakhs had to be made. On the basis of the above allegations the present writ petition was filed in this Court.
(3.) The DDA contested the aforesaid writ petition contending, inter alia, that the case of re-sitement was recommended by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas with a request to allot an alternative plot. The DDA also relied upon the policy of the Government of India dated 18.5.1998 that only those re- sitement proposals would be considered that are necessary on account of unavoidable circumstances like closure of traffic, construction of flyover, etc. It was also the case of the DDA that action for re-sitement was to be taken as per the policy of the DDA and that allotment of the alternative plot was in accordance with the aforesaid policy of the respondent. So far the additional two sites carved out at Dwarka are concerned it was stated that the said two additional sites in Sector 9 Dwarka were carved out not for the purpose of the appellant's case but for allotment in other cases where letters of intent had already been issued. It was also the plea of the DDA that the appellant had itself accepted the offer of re-sitement of the land and possession was taken and therefore there is no case made out by the appellant for interference.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.