GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES 419, UDYOGSADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ,DELHI -92 No. DCI/ILMAC/CI/2011/ I-t ~ 7- 'L - J'D. Dated: 81 ft I J Minutes of the meetina of the Industrial Land Manaaement Advisorv Committee (IlMAC) held on 04.07.2011 at 11.30 A.M. in the chamber of Addl. Commissioner of Industries. A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was convened on 04.07.2011 at 11.30 A.M. under the Chairmanship of Sh. A.R. Talwade, Add\. Commissioner/Chairman ILMAC which was attended by the following members:- 1. Sh. A.R. Talwade, Chairman. 2. Sh. Vinod Kumar, DCI. 3. Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI. 4. Sh. V.K. Garg, Dy. G~M.(DSIIDC). 5. Sh. Ashok Kumar, F.O., Industries Deptt. The cases discussed were as under:- 1. The case of Kiosk No.-20, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi for restoration of allotment in favour of Smt. Madhu Lata. Sh. Pritam Singh, father of Smt. fv1adhulata appeared before ILMAC. The brief of the case is that kiosk No.-20 at Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi was initially allotted to Mrs. Madhu Grover on 16-12-1987 and the possession was handed over to the allottee on 21-03-1989. The allottee did not comply with the terms and conditions of allotment and on account of violations of allotment, Le. failed to deposit the rent of the kiosk monthly, failed to start business within two months from the date of taking qver the possession of the kiosk and allottee has parted with the possession of the kiosk No. 20 illegally. said violations vide letter dated 4-1-1990. The allottee was asked to rectify all the However, no reply was received and on dated 12-4-90 the allotment of the Kiosk was terminated/cancelled. On 11-5 90, an appeal was preferred against cancellation which was rejected and the same was conveyed vide letter dated 21-09-90 and matter was referred to Estate Officer for initiating Eviction proceedings. Aggrieved with the above action, the exallottee filed a petition (C/90) in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (CW 3272/90) and obtained stay vide order of the High Court dated 13-3-91 which was subsequently
\. ------'-- vacated vide Hon'ble High Court order dated 12-11-1991. Vide letters dated 2-6 95 & 5-3-2001, again the Estate Officer was requested for initiating Eviction Proceedings against the ex-allottee under PP Act. The ex-allottee again filed a Civil Suit in the Hon'ble Court and the advocate of the ex-allottee vide letter dated 1-6-01 made a reque~t that the plaintiff i.e. ex-allottee wants to get the said kiosk transferred in the name of her employee Sh. Jagbir Singh after its regularisation in her favor, subject to completion of requisite formalities by him, thereafter the civil suit would be withdrawn by his client i.e. ex-allottee. In the meantime, Sh. Jagbir Singh Malik vide his letter dated 01-01-03 informed this office that the said kiosk No. 20 was taken over by him from Mrs. Madhu Grover, Ex-allottee, on 21-3-1989 after having paid the entire consideration. He also requested the Department to restore the said kiosk and consequently transfer in his favor/name for which he is ready to pay all the outstanding.rent dues and the transfer charges to the department. Vide orders dated 18-3-08, Secretary-cum-Commissioner of Industries viewed that there is no merit in the case and as such the request for restoration and transfer of allotment in favor of Sh. Jasbir Singh Malik is rejected. In the meantime, vide letter dated 29-2-2008, Smt. Madhu Lata, W/o Sh. Jasbir Singh Malik informed the death of her husband on 26-1-2008 and requested for _transferring the kiosk in her name. On 6-9-2008, Smt. Madhu.Lata, enclosing copy of Delhi High Court order dated 3-9-2008 in WP(C) No. 3797 of 2008 requested for NOC enabling her to take the electricity connection. The request of Smt. Madhu Lata for granting NOC for taking Electricity Connection was also rejected by the worthy Commissioner of Industries on 18-09-08. Her request was rejected vide letter.dated 25-9-2008 and advised to vacate kiosk No. 20 within 07 days. On perusal of the original records of kiosk No. 44, the Hon'ble Court has found it exactly similar to the present matter of kiosk No. 20. It has been enquired by the Court as to why the kiosk No. 20 has been treated differently. Moreover the Hon'ble Court has observed that the noting on the file show that a decision was taken to regularize the kiosk 20. However, a U turn has taken in the matter because of-external influence.
Now, Estate Manager (Okhla) submitted the copy of Court order along with the opinion of the Govt. Counsel (linked file). The brief of court order dated 28 01-2011 in WP(C) No. 3797/2008 in the case of Madhu lata and Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi is as under:- th [> I,. i i 1 f "The petitioner challenged an order dated 18-3-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Industries and rejecting the petitioner's request for restoration and transfer of the allotment of Kiosk No. 20 at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III, New Delhi. In the order at SI. No. 7 & 8, it is stated that, 'on 18th January 2007, a notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized. Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued to Shri Malik. Writ petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 2007 was filed in this Court by Shri Malik challenging the said notice. In the counter affidavit filed by the COI before this Court in the aforementioned W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 2007, it was admitted that in similar circumstances where transferees applied for regwlarization of allotments in their favour, decisions were taken on case to case basis subject to compliance with the existing policy. By a judgement dated 14th August 2007, this Court disposed of the aforementioned writ petition by directing the Respondents to consider the application of Sh. Malik in the light of the policy for regularization, as was done in certain other cases. This Court held that the case of Sh. Malik also fell within the same class where regularisation had been ordered in favor of the transferees and, therefore, as required to be reconsidered. The respondents were directed to communicate the decision to Sh. Malik within four weeks. When upon expiry pf the four weeks' period, no decision was taken, Sh. Malik filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 684 of 2007. It is stated that during the pendency of the contempt petition, Sh. Malik expired on 26th January 2008 due to cardiac arrest. He was survived by his wife and two children, the Petitioners herein. On 18th March 2008, the impugned order was thereafter passed by the COl.' Para No. 23 reads as "The factors that ought to have weighed with the COI were that the late husband of Petitioner No. 1 was running a tea stall in the said Kiosk No. 20 for over 17 years, this was their only source of livelihood and if the restoration-of the allotment and transfer of the said kiosk is her name was not ordered, the Petitioners would undoubtedly suffer hardship. Further, as already noticed hereinabove, Mrs. Madhu Grover did not pursue the matter since July 2003 as she obviously was not interested. In fact, there is a noting on the file which records that the lawyer representing Mrs. Madhu ~rover informed the COI that she was not interested in pursuing the suit filed by her. Unfortunately, the COI did not take note of any of the above extenuating factors. Despite there being one clear precedent of the regularisation in respect of Kiosk No. 44, he chose to ignore the same without any valid reason".
. '\ At para No.-24 it is ordered that "for all the aforementioned reasons, this Court sets aside the impugned orderdated 18th March, 2008 passed by the COl. A direction... is issued to Respondent No.2 to issue necessary orders within a period of four weeks restoring the allotment of Kiosk No. 20 and transferring the said allotment in the name of the Petitioner No. 1 subject to her fulfilling all other terms and conditions including payment of necessary charges" Para No. 25 further orders that "The writ petition is allowed in the above terms with costs of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be paid by the Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioners w.ithin a period of four weeks from today. Keeping in view the facts of the case and directions of Hon'ble High Court dated 28-1-2011, ILMAC recommends to allow mutation and restoration of allotment of Kiosk No.-20, Okhla Industrial Estate in favour of Smt. Madhu Lata with subject to payment. of outstanding dues and restoration/regularisation charges with further subject to furnishing of requisite documents for carrying out.. mutation in terms of Land Management Guidelines. 2. The case of Plot No. 180, FIE, Patp,arganj, Delhi-ll0092 - As per recommendations of the concerned branch, the case of Plot No. 180, FIE, Patparganj, Delhi-92 was placed before the ILMAC for conversion of Industrial Plot from leasehold to freehold in favour of Sh. Mohinder Sehgal, Sh. Sanjay Sehgal, Sh. Rajeev Sehgal & Smt. Versha Sehgal. Sh. Sanjay Jolly, the authorized person of the applicant appeared before the ILMAC. In this case all dues have been paid/cleared by the applicant. Nothing adversejviolation has been reported by the Estate Manager in his report. However, an Agreement to Sell dated 15/04/2002 was found to be unregistered but the applicant has paid the stamp duty on. the said Agreement to Sell on 13/04/2009 and there is no loss to the Govt. Revenue. The case was also referred to the Law Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for their expert opinion and they have also opined that if the chain of documents is complete and there is no loss to the Govt. Exchequer, the conversion from Leasehold to Freehold may be allowed. -After going through all the material facts on file, recommendations of the concerned branch and the opinion of the Law Department, the ILMAC. recommends to allow conversion of Plot No. 180, FIE, Patparganj, Delhi-92 from
., Leasehold to Freehold in favour of Sh. Sh. Mohinder Sehgal, Sh. Sanjay Sehgal, Sh. Rajeev Sehgal & Smt. Versha Sehgal subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any as per the Land & Management Guidelines. 3. The case of Plot No. 274, FIE, Patparganj, Delhi-ll0092 :- As per recommendations of the concerned branch, the case of Plot No. 274, FIE, Patparganj, Delhi-92 was placed before the ILMAC conversion of Industrial Plot from leasehold to freehold in favour of Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta (HUF); Sh. Sanjay Jolly, the authorized representative of the applicant was present in the meeting. In the instant case, the GPA dated 20/12/1991 in favour of Smt. Madhu Seth was found to be unregistered and the case was dealt as per policy that prior to 24/09/200~, the GPA should have been registered but the applicant has pleaded his case and submitted a copy of order dated 16/06/2004 obtained by him under Right To Information Act, 2005 from the Sub Registrar's office vide which it is stated that the registration of GPA is compulsory w.e.f. 16/06/2004 only. In view of the policy of the department and the facts submitted by the applicant, the matter was forwarded to the Law Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for opinion and the Law Department has concurred with the view that registration of GPA is compulsory/mandatory w.ej. 16/06/2004 only and in the present case the date of GPA is 20/12/1991. Moreover, in the case of Plot No. S-96, Phase-II, Okhla Industrial Area, D~lhi, the Law Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has opined as under :- "With regard to Power of Attorney it does not indicate any transfer of title or interest or any other matter covered under Section 17 of the Registration Act and for that matter even under Section 18 of the Registration Act. Apart from that the Power of Attorney had been signed by the Notary. Under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act the court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney and signed by a Notary Public was so executed and authenticated. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Suit No. 1488/94 decided on 16/05/2003 in case of Corporation bank Vs Sushil Enterprises and Ors has observed that unless a document creates an interest in the property, it is not compulsory registrable. "
.-.---""""'..--------------------------- " -\ Moreover, in this case the last GPA dated 03/03/1999 is registered one and the chain of documents is complete. Keeping in view the above detailed facts, opinion of the Law Department and the recommendation of the concerned branch the -ILMAC recommends to allow conversion of Plot No. 180, FIE, Patparganj, Delhi-92 from Leasehold to Freehold in favour of Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta (HUF) subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any as per the Land & Management Guidelines. 4. The case of Plot No. 125, FIE, Patparganj, Delhi-110092 :- As per recommendations of the concerned branch, the case of Plot No. 125, FIE, Patparganj, Delhi-92 was placed before the ILMAC for conversion of Industrial Plot from leasehold to freehold in favour of Sh. Deepak Gaba. The applicant Sh. Deepak Gaba was present in the meeting. The case of conversion from Leasehold to Freehold in r/o above said property was discussed in the meeting. During the deliberations, it was observed that last GPA and Agreement to Sell in favour of the applicant were unregistered and both were dated 22/09/2001. Since the registration of Agreement to Sell has become mandatory w.ej. 24/09/2001, the registration of Agreement to Sell was not found to be compulsory but it was observed that for conversion from Leasehold to Freehold either of the documents should be registered and accordingly Sh. Deepak Gaba was directed to get the GPA registered and he agreed to do the needful. 5. The case of Plot No. M-4, Badli Industrial Estate, New Delhi-42 : As per recommendations of the concerned branch, the case of Plot No. M-4, Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate, New Delhi-ll0042 was placed before the ILMAC for restoration of lease deed on payment of requisite dues as per LMG. During the deliberations, the ILMAC was of the view that since eviction orders have been issued by the Estate Officer in the present case, the case for the restoration of the said property cannot be considered and the applicant may be informed accordingly. " ~---~-------------------------
, \.\ r -- Copy to: The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the Chair. No. DCI/ILMAC/CI/2010/ tr I1J",L - 2'0 1. Sh. A.R. Talwade, Chairman(ILMAC). 2. Sh. Vinod Kumar, DCI - Member. 3. Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI - Member. 4. Sh. V.K. Garg, Dy. GM(RL), DSIIDC - Member. 5. Sh. Ashok Kumar, F.a., Industries Deptt. (R.~;;' DCI(ILMAC) Dated :~, \2-', I 1. Chairman(ILMAC)j Add!. C1. 2. JCI (Okhla) 3. PS tocljcmd(dsiidc) 4. D.E.a. Computer Cell for updating the web-site immediately. ~ (~.;K~;;~;'\ DCI(ILMAC) \