WP (C) 22850/05 Page 1 of 5 5. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on: 25.03.2009 + W.P. (C) 22850/2005 NATIONAL MUSKETRY STORES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate. versus D.S.I.D.C. & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for DSIDC Mr. Vijay Kinger for Ms. Monika Garg for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. % Issue Rule. 2. Ms. Renuka Arora and Mr. Vijay Kinger, learned counsel waive notice of Rule. With consent of counsel for the parties, matter was heard finally, for disposal. 3. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to hand over possession of a plot allotted to M/s National Musketry Stores and also for WP (C) 22850/05 Page 2 of 5 executing the requisite documents. 4. Briefly, the facts are that the National Musketry Stores, a partnership firm had applied on 27.12.1996 for allotment of an industrial plot and deposited Rs.1,20,000/- with the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (hereafter referred to as DSIDC). The firm was constituted by a partnership deed dated 1.7.1992. It comprises of Shri Nihal Chand Kansil, S/o Shri Ram Chander, Smt. Prem Lata Kansil, w/o Shri L.D. Kansil and Shri Anuj Kansil, S/o Shri L.D. Kansil. It is claimed that a fresh partnership deed was executed on 1.4.1999, in which an additional partner Smt. Pooja Kansil, w/o Shri Alok Kansil, was included as a partner. Apparently, Shri Nihal Chand Kansal died on 22.6.2000 necessitating re-constitution of the firm. This happened on 6.7.2000. The firm now comprises of Smt. Prem Lata Kansil, Shri Anuj Kansil and Smt. Pooja Kansil. The petitioners approached the respondents repeatedly for grant of possession of the plot allotted to the firm No.97, Pocket-I, Sector-5, Bawana. However, DSIDC consistently maintained that un-earned increase of 50% of the value of the plot had to be paid as a pre condition for handing over possession and execution of necessary documents. Apparently, DSIDC did not issue a formal demand in that regard. In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks the reliefs claimed in the present proceedings. 5. The DSIDC‟s position spelt out in its return initially was that relinquishment deed or documents of all heirs of Late Nihal Chand Kansal was necessary. During the pendency of these proceedings, the writ WP (C) 22850/05 Page 3 of 5 petitioners filed such disclaimer deeds including four affidavits, one of dated 2.1.2006, two of dated 6.1.2006 and one dated 7.1.2006. The Memorandum of family settlement dated 16.4.1990 has also been placed on record. 6. DSIDC‟s position in these proceedings now is that the land management guidelines issued on 27.9.1999 define under what circumstances, one or more partner from a existing firm can be deleted or added. The said guidelines are in the following terms: - “1. Substitution/addition and deletion of names among the family members in Lease Deeds of Industrial Plots. The Existing guidelines for Management of Industrial land managed by the Government of Delhi shall continue to be followed in respect of industrial plots allotted under the „Relocation Scheme‟ where changes involved are from among the family members. 2. Deletion of one or more partner (s) from partnership firm. Deletion of one or more partner (s) shall be allowed on payment of 50% of the unearned increase in the market value of the plot calculated on the basis of proportionate share in profits of the outgoing partner (s). However, the aforesaid unearned increase shall not be chargeable if the outgoing partner transfers his/her share in favour of an existing partner (s) who is from among his her family member. 3. Substitution/addition deletion of Directors in a Pvt. Ltd. Co. or a Public Ltd. Conversions of proprietorship concern or partnership firm into Pvt. Ltd. Co. or a Public Ltd. Co. may not be permitted. However, substitution/addition or deletion in the names of directors may be allowed only from among the family members.” 7. It is contended that the term „Family‟ in relation to a Lessee would WP (C) 22850/05 Page 4 of 5 mean the concerned individual, his spouse, father major son, unmarried daughter or sister and unmarried children. 8. The above discussion would show that initially DSIDC‟s objection to handing over the possession of the property for which the consideration to the extent of 90% as demanded has concededly been paid, was that relinquishment or disclaimer of heirs had not been shown. When that objection was met with during these proceedings, the DSIDC changed its stand and contended that new partners in the re-constituted firm do not fall within the meaning of the term “Family” Member. 9. A reading of the guidelines nowhere indicates the restrictive interpretation placed upon it by the DSIDC in its counter affidavit. What cannot be ignored in this case is that the substituted or newly added persons are all concededly family members; they are daughter-in-laws. DSIDC does not contest this position at all. If that being the case, the fact that it chooses to restrictively interpret the term „Family‟ in the opinion of this Court cannot obscure the circumstance that the partnership firm is comprised of family members. The so called newly added persons i.e. Smt. Pooja Kansil is the wife of Shri Alok Kansil and Smt. Prem Lata Kansil is wife of Shri L.D. Kansal. 10. The object of introducing the concept of a „Family‟ in the opinion of the Court was to ensure that there was no transfer of the firm or interests in the firm to outsiders. The object of allotment was to re-settle those who had been functioning in non-conforming areas or zone within the city of Delhi. If the objective of ensuring that in the event of sale or alienation to WP (C) 22850/05 Page 5 of 5 outsiders being permitted subject to payment of unearned increase of 50% are to be kept in mind, the narrow interpretation sought to be placed on the term family is unsupportable in law; it is arbitrary. 11. It is, therefore, held that the respondent – DSIDC acted without application of mind in rejecting the petitioner‟s request for handing over possession of the plot and execution of the necessary documents. A direction is accordingly issued to the respondents to take immediate steps and ensure that possession of the plot is handed over within eight weeks from today. The respondent DSIDC shall also indicate the formalities to be completed by the petitioners, to comply with the present directions. 12. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) MARCH 25, 2009 /vd/