REPORTABLE

IN THE SURPEME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (C.) NO. 1200 OF 2002

IN

I.A. No. 22  IN I.A. No. 36  IN I.A. No. 129  IN W.P.(C ) No. 4677/1985

WITH

R.P. (C ) No. 1256/2003 in I.A. No. 22 in I.A. No. 129 in W.P. ( C) No.  4677/1995; R.P. (C ) No. 1295 of 2003 in I.A. No. 22 in W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985; R.P.  (C ) No. 1296 of 2003 in I.A. No. 22 in W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985;  I.A. No. 1328 in W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985;  I.A. No. 1329 in W.P. ( C ) No. 4677/1985;  I.A. No. 1782 in W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985; I.A. No. 1805 in W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985;  I.A. No. 1850 in W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985;  I.A. No. 1 in I.A. No. …. IN W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985; Contempt Petition (C ) No. 22 of 2005 in I.A. No. 22 in W.P. (C ) No.  4677/1985; I.A. No. 1876 in CONMT. Petition (C) No. 22 of 2005 in W.P. (C ) No.  4677/1985; I.A. No. 1877 in CONMT. PET. ( C ) No. 22 of 2005 in W.P. (C ) No.  4677/1985; I.A. No. 1883 in R.P. (C ) No. 1296/2003 in R.P. (C ) No. 1200/2002 in R.P.  (C ) No. 1256/2002 in W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985; I.A. No. 1913-1914 in W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985;  I.A. No. 2205 in I.A. 1914/06 in W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985;  I.A. 2222 in I.A. 1172 in W.P. ( C ) No. 4677/1985;  I.A. No. 2238 in I.A. 1914/06 in W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985;  I.A. No. 2266 in W.P. (C ) No. 4677/1985

SIEL FOODS AND FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES            ….PETITIONER

versus

UNION OF INDIA  ...RESPONDENT

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI:

In  the  city  of  Delhi,  there  were  several  hazardous  and  noxious  

industries,  as  also  several  large  and  heavy  industries,  causing  extensive  

pollution.  The  Master  Plan  for  Delhi  –  Perspective  2001,  which  was  

published in the Gazette of India on 01.08.1990, did not permit any of these  

industries to operate in Delhi. In a Public Interest Litigation i.e. M.C. Mehta  

v.  Union of  India & Others, [IA No.22 in W.P.  (C) No. 4677/1985] the  

question  of  shifting  these  polluting  industries  from Delhi  and  relocating  

them outside the city of Delhi and other related issues were considered and a  

series of orders were passed regarding shifting and relocating the industries.  

The  polluting  industries  were  notified  through  individual  notices,  public  

notices in newspapers and electronic media. This Court monitored the matter  

from January, 1995 and all stake holders, including Union of India, Delhi  

2

Administration, Central  Pollution Control Board, National Capital  Region  

Planning Board, Delhi Development Authority, and the polluting industries  

were  heard/consulted  during  several  hearings.  The  Delhi  Development  

Authority [for short “DDA”] was also directed to frame suitable schemes  

regarding the  utilization of  land which would become available  after  the  

relocation of the hazardous/noxious/heavy/large industries from Delhi. DDA  

constituted  a  Committee  with  Mr.  K.J.  Alphons,  Commissioner,  Land  

Management,  DDA,  as  Chairman  for  this  purpose.  The  said  Committee  

examined the question regarding the utilization of land made available as a  

result  of the re-location/  shifting of the industries  and submitted detailed  

proposals.  Views of other experts were also considered.

2. After hearing the parties including the affected industries, ultimately  

an order was passed on 10.05.1996 (reported in 1996 (4) SCC 351)  

relevant portions of which are extracted below:

“6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the point at issue  before  us.  We have  had  elaborate  discussion  with  the  learned  counsel  representing various industries which are to be relocated/shifted. The basic  charter  for  the  land  use  in  the  city  of  Delhi  is  the  Master  Plan.  The  provisions  of  the  Master  Plan  are  statutory  and  binding.  The  relevant  provisions regarding hazardous/noxious/heavy/large  industries under  the  Master Plan are as under:

“HAZARDOUS AND NOXIOUS INDUSTRIES

Refer Annexure III H(a).

3

(a) The hazardous and noxious industrial  units  are  not permitted in  Delhi. (b) The existing industrial units of this type shall be shifted on priority  within a maximum time-period of three years. Project report to effectuate  shifting  shall  be prepared by the units  concerned and submitted  to the  authority within a maximum period of one year.  (c) The land which would become available on account of shifting as  administered in (b) above, would be used for making up the deficiency, as  per the needs of the community; based on norms given in Master Plan; if  any land or part of land, so vacated is not needed for the deficiency of the  community services, it will be used as per prescribed land use; however  the land shall be used for light and service industries, even if the land use  according  to  the  Master  Plan/Zonal  Development  Plan  is  extensive  industry. (d) * * *

HEAVY AND LARGE INDUSTRIES Refer Annexure III H(b)

(a) No  new  heavy  and  large  industrial  units  shall  be  permitted  in  Delhi. (b) The existing heavy and large-scale industrial  units  shall  shift  to  Delhi Metropolitan Area and the National Capital region keeping in view  the National  Capital  Region Plan and National  Industrial  Policy of  the  Government of India. (c) The land which would become available on account of shifting as  administered in (b) above, would be used for making up the deficiency, as  per the needs of the community; based on norms given in the Master Plan;  if any land or part of land so vacated is not needed for the deficiency of  the  community  services,  it  will  be  used  as  per  prescribed  land  use;  however the land shall be used for light and service industries, even if the  land  use  according  to  the  Master  Plan/Zonal  Development  Plan  is  extensive industry. (d) * * *

It is thus obvious that the land which would become available on account  of shifting/relocation of the industries can only be used for making up the  deficiency, as per the needs of the community, based on the norms given  in the Master Plan. If any land or part of the land, so vacated is not needed  for community services it can be used as per the prescribed land use. To  appreciate the concept “need of the community” under the Master Plan, it  would be useful to have a look at the following provisions of the Master  Plan :-

“In general  it  would be desirable  to take up all  the existing developed  residential areas one by one for environmental improvements through (i)  

4

plantation and landscaping (ii) provision of infrastructure – physical and  social and proper access where lacking (iii)  possibility of infrastructure  management of the last tier through the local residents.  

Conservation and revitalization is required in case of traditional areas and  environmental upgradation and improvement is needed in other old built- up areas.  

LUNG SPACES

x  x x x xxxx xxxx

Further conversion of recreational areas to other uses should be permitted  only under extraordinary circumstances. Areas in lieu of such conversion  may be provided elsewhere in order to maintain the overall average for the  city. xxxx xxxx”

7. Delhi is one of the most polluted cities in the world. The quality of  ambient air is so hazardous that lung and respiratory diseases are on the  increase. The city has become a vast and unmanageable conglomeration of  commercial,  industrial,  unauthorized colonies,  resettlement colonies and  unplanned housing. There is total lack of open spaces and green areas.  Once a beautiful city Delhi now presents a chaotic picture. The most vital  “community need” as at present is the conservation of the environment  and  reversal  of  the  environmental  degradation.  There  are  virtually  no  “lung spaces” in the city. The Master Plan indicates the “approximately 34  per cent of recreational areas have been lost to other uses”. We are aware  that the housing, the sports activity and the recreational areas are also part  of the “community need” but the most important community need which  is wholly deficient and needed urgently is to provide for the “lung spaces”  in the city of Delhi in the shape of green belts and open spaces. We are,  therefore, of the view that totality of the land which is surrendered  and  dedicated  to  the  community  by  the  owners/occupiers  of  the  relocated/shifted  industries  should  be  used  for  the  development  of  green belts and open  spaces.

 8. The core question for consideration, however, is how much of  the  total  land  which  would  become  available  from  each  of  the  industrialists is to be taken away by the community for its use and  how  much  is  to  be  left  in  the  hands  of  the  industrialists  for  the  community use. The suggestions  given by Alphons Committee  in  this  respect have been noted by us in the earlier part of the order.  Mr. Omesh  Sehgal,  Mr.  P.C.  Jain and Justice  Khanna by and large agree with the  suggestions of the Alphons Committee. We are of the view that no useful  purpose would be served by maintaining two categories as suggested by  Alphons Committee in columns 3 and 4.  After leaving a part of the land  

5

with the owner for developing the same in accordance with the surrender  to the Delhi Development Authority [DDA] for developing the same to  meet  the community needs,  it  obviously means that  the land has to  be  surrendered  and  dedicated  to  the  community.   While  meeting  the  community  needs  it  is  necessary  to  make  a  suitable  provision  for  the  owner  to  enable  him  to  meet  the  expenses  of  relocating/shifting  the  industry.  It  would,  therefore,  be  in  conformity  with  the  broader  concept of “community need” under the Master Plan, to permit the  owner to develop part of the land for his own benefit and surrender  the remaining land for the use of the community at large.

9. We,  therefore,  order  and  direct  that  the  land  which  would  become  available  on  account  of  shifting/relocation  of  hazardous/noxious/heavy and large industries from the city of Delhi  shall be used in the following manner:

S.No. Extent Percentage  to  be  surrendered  and  dedicated  to  the  DDA  for  development  of  green  belts  and  other spaces

Percentage  to  be  development  by  the  owner  for  his  own  benefit  in  accordance  with  the  user  permitted  under the Master Plan

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Up  to  2000  sq.  mts. (including the  first  2000 sq.  mts.  of the larger plot)

- 100% to be developed by  the  owner  in  accordance  with the zoning regulation  of the Master Plan

2 0.2 ha to 5 ha 57 43 3 5 h to 10 ha 65 35 4 Over 10 ha 68 32

10. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the industrialists that  Floor Area Ratio [FAR] be permitted to them on the total area of  the plot.  We, however, direct that on the percentage of land as  shown in column 4 the owners at Serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall be  entitled to one and a half times of the permissible FAR under  the Master Plan

11. The DDA has suggested that it may be necessary to amend the  Master Plan for regularizing the land use as directed by us.  The  totality  of  the  land  made  available  as  a  result  of  the  relocating/shifting  of  the  industries  is  to  be  used  for  the  community needs. The land surrendered by the owner has to  be used for the development of green belt and open spaces. The  

6

land left with the owner is to be developed in accordance with  the user permitted under the Master Plan. In either way the  development  is  to  meet  the  community  needs  which  is  in  conformity with the provisions of the Master Plan.”

 (emphasis supplied)

3. This was followed by another order dated 8.7.1996 (reported in 1996  

(4) SCC 750)  wherein this Court observed :

“…. The allotment of the plots shall be made on priority basis. We have  no doubt that reasonable incentives, which are normally provided to new  industries  in  new  industrial  estates,  shall  be  extended  to  the  shifting  industries.  This  Court  by  the  order  dated  10.5.1996 in  M.C.  Mehta  v.  Union of India [1996 (4) SCC 351] has already directed and laid down the  manner in which the land which would become available on account of  shifting of H(a) and H(b) industries is to be used.  In view of the huge  increase  of  prices  of  land in Delhi,  the reuse of  the vacant  land is  bound to bring lots of money which can meet the cost of relocation.”

“The  use  of  the  land  which  would  become  available  on  account  of  shifting/relocation  of  the  industries  shall  be  permitted  in  terms  of  the  orders of this Court dated 10.5.1996 in M.C. Mehta.”

 (emphasis supplied)

4. By order dated 4.12.1996 (reported in 1997 (11) SCC 237) several  

clarifications were issued. One of the clarifications was that the order dated  

10.5.1996 regarding land use – that is utilization of land available as a result  

of  shifting/relocation/closure  of  hazardous/noxious/heavy/large  industries  

from Delhi - are applicable both for relocating industries as well as those  

which decide to close down and not to relocate.  

7

5.  While most of the industries, shifted or relocated, there were delay  

and obstacles in surrendering the land for community purposes as per the  

order  dated  10.5.1996.  The  District  court,  Delhi  was  authorized  to  

implement  the  directions  issued by this  Court.  The High Court  has  been  

monitoring the progress of the surrender of the lands as a consequence of  

such re-locations.   

6.  Some of the industries including Swatantra Bharat Mills and DCM  

Silk Mills filed interlocutory applications praying for a direction to DDA to  

acquire the land required to be surrendered under the DDA Act or  Land  

Acquisition Act and to restrain DDA from trying to expropriate their lands.  

The request was turned down and IAs were dismissed as withdrawn.  

7. Thereafter, M.C. Mehta, the petitioner in the public interest litigation  

moved an application (IA No.129 in  IA No.22) making  a grievance that  

though the industries were closed, they had not surrendered the excess land  

to DDA, in pursuance of the orders dated 10.5.1996 and 8.7.1996. Notices  

were  issued  to  the  defaulting  industries.  A  large  number  of  industries  

appeared through counsel and the matter was heard at length.   Mr. K.K.  

Venugopal,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  a  group  of  

8

industries contended that this Court had never contemplated that the land  

should  be  surrendered  free  of  cost.  He  further  contended  that  when this  

Court directed that their land should be surrendered, it was clearly implied  

that the DDA would have to acquire the land under Section 15 of the Delhi  

Development  Act,  1957  and  pay  compensation  for  the  land.  After  

considering the contentions, this Court by order dated 28.4.2000 (reported in  

2000 (5) SCC 525), categorically rejected the said contention by holding as  

follows:

“When this Court first passed the order on 10.05.1996, it had before it the  report  of  Mr.  Justice  D.R.  Khanna  and  had  the  advantage  of  hearing  several counsels over a period of six months as is evident from the order  itself.  It will be difficult to believe or accept that the Court was not aware  of the provisions of the Delhi  Development Authority Act which,  inter  alia, provides in Section 15 that the Authority could acquire the land for  the purposes of the Act.  The Court nevertheless directed the surplus land  not to be acquired by DDA but to be surrendered by the owners. With  regard to the balance of land, it was to be retained by the owner.  The  Court directed that FAR would stand increased to “one-and-a-half  times of the permissible FAR under the Master Plan”.  It is true that  the  Court  did  not  direct  any  compensation,  but  this  element  of  compensation was clearly present in the mind of the Court when it  increased FAR and permitted the owner to build more than what was  permissible  under  the  Master Plan.  It  is  not  possible,  therefore,  to  accept the contention that DDA is bound to acquire the land under  Section 15 after paying compensation.

Be that as it  may,  there is nothing to indicate in the order nor has our  attention been drawn to any affidavit that there was, at any point of time, a  contention raised or a demand made that cash payment should be made for  the  land  required  to  be  surrendered  or  that  DDA  should  be  asked  to  acquire  the  land  under  Section  15.  Mr.  G.L.  Sanghi,  learned  Senior  Counsel submits that in a matter like this where a public interest litigation  is filed, the principle of res judicata does not strictly apply.  Even if this  be  so,  we  would  have  expected  the  owners  to  have  raised  this  contention  if  they  had  genuinely  felt  that  there  was  a  need  for  

9

compensation  to  be  awarded  for  the  land  which  was  to  be  surrendered.  Perhaps  they  were  happy  to  have  an  increased  FAR  which would have enabled them to construct more and would have  offset the loss of land without payment of money.  In fact, by the order  dated 08.07.1996 reported as M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India [see : 1996  (4) SCC 750 at page 762, para 15],  it was observed as follows:

‘In view of the huge increase of prices of land in Delhi, the reuse of the  vacant land is bound to bring lots of money which can meet the cost of  relocation’

Be that as it may, we do not think that it is appropriate at this juncture to  permit the erstwhile owners of the land to raise the contention that they  should be paid compensation.

It has to be borne  in mind that the Master Plan of 1990 made it obligatory  on the hazardous industries to shift within three years.  No time limit was  stipulated with regard to the existing heavy and large industries, but the  spirit clearly was that they should shift within a reasonable period of time.  If the industries continued to use the land in violation of and in disregard  of the Master Plan and then have had to lose some parcels of land, they  have to blame themselves for it.  It was contended before us by Mr. K.K.  Venugopal that if the industry had shut before 1996, it would have been  entitled to retain all the land, but because the closure has been effected as  a result of the order of this Court, the owners have had to surrender part of  the land free of cost. This is undoubtedly, true but as we have observed  above if the owners had cared to obey the law then, as is always the case,  would have been more profitable.”

 (emphasis supplied)

8. Another attempt was made by a group of industries by raising this  

issue  regarding  compensation  for  land  surrendered,  when  DDA  filed  an  

interlocutory  application  for  various  directions.  The  industries  also  filed  

several applications. All those interlocutory applications came up before a  

three Judge Bench of this Court and this Court disposed of the matter by  

judgment  dated  01.03.2001  [reported  in  (2001)  4  SCC  577].   It  was  

10

contended  by  the  industries  that  their  industrial  units  which  had  been  

ordered to re-locate were not bound to surrender their freehold land free of  

cost and that the DDA had to acquire the land under Section 15 of the Act.  

The matter was elaborately argued by eminent counsel and their arguments  

were discussed in detail, and all their pleas were rejected. This Court also  

noticed  that  the  Master  Plan  came  into  existence  in  1962  and  that  ‘H’  

category industries ought to have shifted out of the area in 1962 itself; that  

the subsequent Master Plan in 1990 directed shifting the industries within a  

specified period of within three years; that there was an obligation on the ‘H’  

category industries to shift and relocate in terms of the Master Plan by the  

year 1993; and that all possible opportunities were given to the industries  

and  upon  assessment  of  the  situation  through  the  appointments  of  

commissions and obtaining the consent of various parties on these aspects,  

the  Court  passed  the  order  on  10.05.1996.  This  Court  issued  specific  

directions on several issues raised by DDA. This Court directed that even  

industries which closed prior to the order  dated 10.5.1996 (whose names  

appeared in the list  of ‘H’ category industries to be closed) are liable to  

surrender land as per order dated 10.5.1996. The relevant portions of the  

order are extracted below :-  

11

“Be it  noted that the learned Amicus Curiae with his usual eloquence  contended that review applications against the order passed on 10.5.1996  numbered 36 in the year 1966, 55 in the year 1997, 3 in the year 1999 and  2 petitions in the year 2000, as the records depict, were all dismissed and  in the wake of the same, Mr. Ranjit Kumar addressed us in detail that the  present petition said to be for clarification cannot but be attributed to be a  further attempt to review the order dated 10.5.1996 which, in fact, does  not call for any review nor does it call for any further order substituting  the earlier order dated 10.5.1996.  

Be it noted that the order dated 10.5.1996 specifically directed that ‘H’  category industries are required to surrender the land to DDA. We may  note here that this order of surrender was passed by reason of the fact that  the pollution level has reached its optimum in the city of Delhi affecting  the entire society – ‘H’ category industries were directed to close and to   surrender  the  land so as to  make available  some green belt  and open  space popularly ascribed to be lung space for the city. Industries might  have closed in terms of the order of this Court and the compliance with the  order was to this limited extent only. Structures are still lying there and no  surrender has yet taken place. The majesty of law demanded compliance in   observance rather than in its breach – it is for the society only that this   Court thought it fit to pass order to the extent as indicated above ……

……. We make it  clear  that  the  order  dated 7.12.1999,  in  the case of  vegetable oil was in the peculiar facts of that case and is not of universal  application, nor does it in any way dilute the mandate of the order of this  Court directing surrender of entire land subject to the extent of availability  to the owner as per order dated 10.5.1996.

….. On the question as to the land to be surrendered should be free from  encumbrance, we are of the view, if the land is already encumbered, then a  direction to release  it  from encumbrance  and surrender  will  be a  great  burden. At the same time, such land will be of no use to the society unless  released from encumbrance. In the circumstances we direct that the owner  cannot utilize the land available to him by virtue of order of this Court  dated 10.5.1996, until he releases the surrendered land from encumbrance.  Further, if it is not made free from encumbrance within five years, then he  will not get the benefit of the order dated 10.5.19996 and after five years  even the  land which  the  owner  was otherwise entitled  to retain  would  stand vested with DDA for the use and the need of the society. ”         

9. The  petitioners  in  these  Review  Petitions  and  Interlocutory  

Applications  seek  a  review  of  the  orders  dated  10.5.1996  8.7.1996,  

12

4.12.1996 and 28.4.2000 passed by this Court.  We have heard Sri Harish  

Salve,  Sri  Mukul  Rohatgi,  Dr.  A.M.  Singhvi,  Sri  Dushyant  Dave,  Mr.  

Jaideep Gupta, Mr. M.L. Lahoti, and others for the land-owners (erstwhile  

industries  in  Delhi)  as  also  the  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  on  

behalf of the Union Government, and Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, on behalf of the  

Delhi Development Authority. Mr. Ranjit Kumar rendered able assistance as  

amicus curiae.  

10.    The petitioners/ applicants contended that the findings of this Court in  

the earlier judgments and orders dated 10.5.1996, 8.7.1996 and 28.4.2000  

regarding  the  element  of  compensation  are  ex facie incorrect  and  the  

judgment and order dated 10.05.1996 is liable to be reviewed.  It was urged  

that the increased FAR mentioned in the Order is illusory and that there were  

restrictions on the permitted height of construction and many of the owners  

of  freehold  land  had  not  been  able  to  use  the  increased  FAR.  They  

contended that if any land is required for the purpose of development or for  

any  other  purpose,  DDA  should  resort  to  compulsory  acquisition  under  

section 15 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. It was contended that no  

land can be taken over or required to be surrendered without compulsory  

acquisition  under  Section  15  of  the  Delhi  Development  Act,  1957  and  

13

payment of market value as compensation. It was contended that transfer of  

ownership of freehold land otherwise than by acquisition or by conveyance  

or  by  inheritance  was   not   known  to  law;  and  Article  300A  of  the  

Constitution  barred  any  person  being  deprived  of  his  property  save  by  

authority of law. It was further contended that the mere fact that this court  

did not want the Government to undertake the time consuming process of  

acquisition under Section 15 of the Delhi Development Act would not in any  

way detract from the rule of law which requires the land owners of Delhi  

Industries to be treated on par  with owners of  land in other  parts  of the  

country which are acquired for the purposes of urban development. It was  

submitted while Section 15 deals with compulsory acquisition of land where  

the land is required for the purpose of development or any other purpose  

under the DD Act, Section 55 of the said Act dealt with modification of the  

Master Plan or zonal development plan in certain cases. The said section  

provided that  where  any  land  is  required  by  the  Master  Plan or  a  zonal  

Development  Plan  to  be  kept  as  an  open  space  or  un-built  upon  or  is  

designated in any such plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, then if at  

the  expiration  of  10  years  from the  date  of  operation  of  the  plan  under  

section 11 or where such land has been so required or designated by any  

amendment of such plan, from the date of operation of such amendment, the  

14

land is not compulsorily acquired, the owner of the land may serve notice on  

the Government requiring his interest in the land to be so acquired; and if the  

Government fails to acquire the land within a period of six months from the  

date of the said notice, the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan, shall  

have effect, as if the land were not required to be kept as an open space or  

un-built upon or were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition. It  

is  submitted  this  provision  was  completely  ignored  by  this  Court,  while  

passing  the  order  dated  10.5.1996.  It  was  argued  that  as  relevant  

constitutional and statutory provisions had not been taken note of by this  

Court,  and  as  there  is  an  apparent  error  on  the  face  of  the  record,  the  

impugned order  dated 10.05.1996 should be reviewed.  Another argument  

put forth by some of the owners is the word ‘surrender’ used in the order  

dated 10.5.1996 would apply only to leasehold land and not to freehold land.  

It was further submitted that physical surrender of land to DDA in pursuance  

of the order dated 10.5.1996 being for the limited purpose of maintaining  

green  belt  and lung spaces,  DDA cannot  claim any  ownership  right  nor  

commercially exploit the same. It was lastly contended that the rule of ‘res  

judicata’ would not apply in this case to prevent the Court from entertaining  

the grievance and giving appropriate directions.

15

11. The learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that despite the fact that the  

Master Plan for Delhi was published as early as in 1990, these hazardous,  

noxious, large and heavy industries did not take steps to shift their premises  

out of Delhi and these industries had been causing severe pollution for a  

long  period  thereby  violating  the  Master  Plan  as  well  as  damaging  the  

environment and it was at this juncture that this Court had passed the order  

and directed all these industries to be re-located outside Delhi and issued  

categorical directions regarding surrender of portions of the land cleared by  

shifting of industries for community use; and that the landowners were not  

entitled  to  any  compensation  in  regard  to  such  surrender  except  the  

additional FAR granted under the decision. The learned Additional Solicitor  

General and the learned counsel for DDA also took the same stand. They  

further pointed out that all the above-mentioned pleas had been raised before  

this Court and had been considered in detail on more than one occasion and  

that they had been rejected and many of these petitioners have repeatedly  

filed review petitions, curative petitions and writ petitions and some of these  

petitions have been filed much after the original order that was passed on  

10.05.1996.  Therefore, it was urged that there is no merit in the contentions  

advanced by the petitioners.

16

12. There is no question of acquisition and/or compensation in regard to  

the lands to be surrendered, is also evident from the categorical directions  

given in the order dated 10.5.1996. The surrender of lands by the industries  

was  under  a  broad  scheme  framed  by  the  court  after  assessment  and  

consideration  of  the  then  existing  situation,  the  reports  of  various  

committees,  the  grievances and contentions of various industries and the  

consensus  arrived  at  on certain  issues,  and the  findings  on  several  other  

issues. This Court categorically stated :  

“After leaving a part of the land with the owner for developing the same in   accordance  with  the  permissible  land  use  under  the  Master  Plan,  the  remaining land should be surrendered to Delhi Development Authority for   developing the same to meet the community needs.”  

In para 10 of the order dated 10.5.1996, this Court held that  in respect of the  

land which was to be retained by the owner for its own benefit and to be  

developed in accordance with the permitted use, the owner will be entitled to  

one and half times the permissible FAR under the Master Plan. The scheme  

contemplated not merely surrender of a part of the land but “dedication” of  

such surrendered land to the DDA for development of green belts and open  

spaces. The land that was to be surrendered had to be retained as green belt  

and open spaces and not to be sold, constructed or developed by DDA.  

17

13. We have carefully considered the various review petitions and other  

applications filed in this regard. We have extracted the relevant portions of  

the orders dated 10.5.1996, 8.7.1996, 4.12.1996 and 28.4.2000 which clearly  

demonstrate  that  the  owners  of  land/industries  were  given  a  fair  hearing  

before passing the order on 10.5.1996.  The petitioners had now raised these  

very contentions that their lands will have to be acquired and that they are  

entitled to get reasonable compensation when their land was taken over. All  

these pleas had been repeatedly rejected by this Court. The Scheme evolved  

by this Court in its order dated 10.5.1996 is clear :  

(i) The land which becomes available on account of an industry being  

shifted out of Delhi would be divided equitably into two portions. The one  

portion to be retained by the land owner for development for his own benefit  

and the  other  portion  to  be  surrendered  to  DDA for  community  use  for  

development of green belts, open/lung spaces. The land to be surrendered  

and dedicated for community use was 57% (where the size of the plot was  

0.2H to 5H), 65% (where the size of the plot was 5H to 10H) and 68%  

(where  the  plot  was  over  10H).  The  balance  was  to  be  retained  by  the  

landowner. The percentage was to be calculated after deducting first 2000  

sq.m. for development by the owner.  

(ii) In consideration of the land owners surrendering and dedicating a part  

of the land for community use, they (land owners) will  be entitled to an  

18

additional 50% FAR in regard to the land permitted to be retained by them  

for their benefit. That is, the  FAR would stand increased to one and a half  

times of the admissible FAR under the Master Plan. The landowners will not  

be entitled to any other consideration/compensation for the land surrendered  

and dedicated to the community.  

(iii) The  portions  of  land  surrendered  to  DDA  and  dedicated  for  

community purposes, that is only for being used as green belt or open ‘lung  

spaces’ for the city. Such dedicated land will be used only for such dedicated  

purpose and not any other purpose.  

(iv) The land will be at the disposal of the community at large and the  

DDA  shall  not  exploit  it  for  either  commercial  use  or  construction  of  

residential flats. As DDA is not going to derive any benefit by exploitation  

thereof, and was to only hold it in trust for and on behalf of the community,  

there was no question of DDA paying any compensation therefore to the  

land owners.  

It  therefore,  follows  that  such  land  dedicated  by  private  owners  to  the  

community, is acquired for any other purpose, or is diverted to any other use  

by DDA (as for example for putting up constructions or for sale or lease for  

development  or  construction),  the  land  owner  will  be  entitled  to  

compensation. But so long as the land remained as lung space/green area,  

19

there  is  no  question  of  any  payment  to  the  owner,  as  compensation  or  

otherwise.  

14. The order dated 10.5.1996 was passed to get effect to the Master Plan,  

to save the city and in public interest. Therefore by surrendering a part of the  

land, the owners were not only benefiting the community but themselves.  

The records clearly show that before the order dated 10.5.1996 was passed,  

the question what should be the compensation for the surrendered lands was  

specifically raised and considered. It was made clear that additional FAR  

will be in lieu of any monetary compensation for the land to be surrendered  

and dedicated to DDA for community use, for development green belts and  

lung spaces. Therefore, it is evident that the order dated 10.5.1996 clearly  

intended that the land to be surrendered would vest in trust in DDA for the  

benefit  of  the  community  and  the  additional  FAR  was  the  only  

compensation  for  such  surrender  land  for  community  benefit  and  there  

would be no further compensation. Contentions similar to the contentions  

now raised were rejected by this Court by order dated 28.4.2000. Therefore,  

it  is not possible for this Court to again review all these orders or take a  

different  view.  Therefore,  all  these  review  petitions,  applications  for  

directions and clarifications are without any merit.

20

15. We may note that some of these review petitions have been filed after  

dismissal or withdrawal of the earlier petition by the very same petitioners  

seeking almost the very same reliefs.  Therefore, such petitions are  prima  

facie not maintainable and the pleas raised by these petitioners to review the  

earlier order passed by this Court cannot be considered. Be that as it may. As  

the  contentions  raised  by  others  have  been  considered,  this  issue  loses  

relevance.  

16. One aspect requires clarification, particularly in view of some of the  

surrendered land being acquired or  taken perpetual  lease by Delhi  Metro  

Rail  Corporation  from DDA.  The  landowners  surrendered  and  dedicated  

portions of the land as shown in Column III of the Table contained in Para 9  

of the Order dated 10.5.1996 exclusively for the purpose of development of  

green belt  and open spaces.  Therefore wherever such open lung space is  

created, it shall be shown in the Municipal/DDA records as ‘DDA land –  

dedicated by xxxxxxxx’.  The DDA shall maintain a Trust Account of such  

surrendered  lands.  This  would  mean  that  the  DDA  which  holds  the  

surrendered and dedicated land in Trust cannot use it for any purpose other  

than as green belt or other spaces for the benefit of the community.  This  

21

will  be  necessary  to  identify  if  the  land  held  by  DDA  in  trust  for  the  

community is not lost and is not treated as DDA owned lands which can be  

dealt with by DDA as absolute owner. In the event of any acquisition or  

development of such surrendered land, the owner- dedicator will have the  

benefit of compensation on account of land ceasing to be ‘land dedicated to  

the  community  purpose  of  lung/open  space”.  As  the  owner  has  already  

received some consideration in the form of 50% additional FAR, we are of  

the view that  when such acquisition/alienation takes place,  DDA and the  

land owner will  be entitled to share the compensation at  50% each.  The  

second aspect is where the land surrendered is very small (say on account of  

57% of  0.2  Hectare  that  is  1140 sqm being surrendered)  or  being of  an  

irregular shape, and DDA finds that it is not feasible or practical to maintain  

any small  areas as  independent  green belt  or park or  playground or lung  

space or to safeguard any such area from encroachers, DDA can take steps  

to consolidate several smaller areas into larger blocks in the same locality so  

that they can be used effectively. For that purpose, DDA may also enter into  

suitable  arrangements  by  way  of  exchange  or  otherwise.  But  any  such  

consolidation or  exchange shall  be only with the sanction of the District  

Court, Delhi, after notice to the Landowners – Dedicators. Any change in  

use of such surrendered land held in trust by DDA or any transfer by DDA  

22

shall be only after securing prior permission from the High Court of Delhi.  

17. M/s  SIEL  Ltd.,  the   applicant  in  IA  No.  1914/2006  and  IA  No.  

2205/2007 (SIEL Ltd.) submitted that DDA, out of 18.854 Hec. surrendered  

by  it  though  it  did  not  have  either  ownership  or  right  of  commercial  

exploitation had transferred 7.5 Hec. plus  1.21 Hec. to DMRC on payment  

of a premium of 1,55,33,213/- plus others amounts. It is contended that such  

transfer was impermissible and the monetary gain should be paid over to the  

owner of the land. It is also contended that the land should be used only in  

accordance with the order dated 10.5.1996.  

18. The land surrendered by SIEL Ltd. as per the order dated 10.5.1996 to  

DDA could be used only for community purposes and cannot be used for  

any private purpose.  In circumstances where the land is acquired or used  

(other than as green belt and open lung space) for any other purpose under  

extreme  necessity   the  land  owner  would  be  entitled  to  get  50% of  the  

compensation or consideration for the use of such land.  We make it clear  

that the owner of such land would be entitled to get 50% of the amount  

received by DDA as consideration/compensation. If DDA fails to pay the  

same, such persons would be entitled to take appropriate legal action. We  

again reiterate that any such diversion of use by DDA shall henceforth be  

23

only with the  permission of  the District  Court,  Delhi,  after  notice to  the  

landowners  concerned.  I.A.  1850/2003  and  IA  1914/2006  with  IA  

No.2205/2007 are disposed of accordingly.  

19.  All review petitions, interlocutory applications and other petitions are  

dismissed, subject to the clarification contained in paras 13, 16, 17 and 18  

above.

  …………………………CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

…………………………..J. (R.V. RAVEENDRAN)

…………………………..J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

New Delhi March  25, 2010.  

24