- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and final order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No.3 of 2013, whereby the High Court has disallowed the action of the appellant- Corporation in cancellation of the plot allotted under the "Relocation Scheme" on account of non-payment of the initial 50% amount towards the cost of the plot in terms of order dated 24.1.2001 passed by this Court in M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India, 2001 1 Scale 420 and subsequently dismissed the L.P.A. of the appellant-Corporation. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:-
(3.) The appellant-Corporation is the agency implementing the direction of this Court in the case of M.C.Mehta , for the relocation of industries that are carrying on business in non conforming areas or are misusing residential properties. The respondent, who was running a commercial/industrial establishment in a residential premises, made an application dated 23.12.1996 for the allotment of a plot under the "Relocation Scheme" and also furnished a sum of Rs.60,000/- along with the application. The respondent was required to make a further deposit of 30% of the tentative cost of the plot, which amounts to Rs.75,000/-, apart from the earnest money paid along with the application, which was duly deposited by him on 09.05.2000. The application of the respondent was accepted and he was allotted a plot measuring 150 sq. meters bearing no.57, Pocket-I, Sector-2, Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi, in accordance with the allotment letter issued on 23.10.2000. The appellant-Corporation also informed the respondent that the cost of the plot stood revised from Rs.3000/- per sq. meter to Rs.4,200/- per square meter and the respondent was also required to deposit 50% of the revised estimated cost, which amounted to Rs.3,15,000/- within a period of 3 months from 23.10.2000. Pursuant to an order dated 24.01.2001 passed by this Court in M.C.Mehta's case , the date for depositing the requisite amount was subsequently extended to 31.03.2001. The respondent failed to deposit the said amount despite the extension of the period given by this Court. The respondent deposited an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to complete the payment of 50% of the cost of the plot on 27.11.2001, instead of the stipulated date i.e. 31.03.2001, without any demand and permission from the appellant-Corporation. The payment challan states that any late payment or payment without demand would not create any right upon the property. on 27.07.2004, an aggregate sum of Rs.4,27,117/-, was deposited by the respondent on a demand made by an officer of the appellant-Corporation, to complete the balance payment of 50% of the cost of the plot as well as the interest for delay in making payment. Further, on 14.11.2006, the respondent received a communication from the appellant-Corporation, demanding certain documents to facilitate the handing over the possession of the plot to the respondent. However, the allotment in favour of the respondent was cancelled on 30.01.2008 and the amount was refunded with interest on 07.05.2010. Aggrieved by the cancellation order, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.8478 of 2010 before the learned single Judge of the High Court, who disposed of the same in favour of the respondent vide order dated 03.07.2012, stating that the appellant-Corporation had not corrected the mistake committed by its officer and had remained silent for four years after the receipt of the value of the plot. It has further held that the aforesaid action of the appellant-Corporation shows that it had accepted the action of the officer. Further, the respondent had paid interest on the delayed payment, which was also accepted by the appellant-Corporation, and therefore the doctrine of equity is in his favour. Further, no action was taken against the concerned officer of the appellant-Corporation by it. Thus, in the absence of any reasonable explanation as to why the appellant-Corporation chose to enjoy the money of the respondent for a period of 4 years without any recourse to him and without taking any action for the cancellation of the allotment of the plot, can safely lead to the conclusion that the appellant-Corporation chose to accept the action of its Section Officer, Mr.R.K.Bhatia. Thus, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition and quashed the cancellation letter dated 30.01.2008, wherein the appellant-Corporation has cancelled the plot allotted to the respondent and further the appellant- Corporation was directed to make available an alternate plot to the respondent in case the original plot allotted to the respondent was not available, within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.;