W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 1 of 20

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 6

th

December, 2025

Pronounced on: 27

th

February, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 7780/2013

ANJALI KHURANA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajesh Banati, Mr. Ashish Sareen

and Mr. Adil Asghar, Advocates.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Bankim Garg, Advocate for

DSIIDC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

1950, seeks the following prayers: -

“(a) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus

and/or certiorari and/or any other Writ, order or direction to the

Respondent to allot an industrial plot measuring 50 square mts. in

an industrial area, Delhi.

(b) Grant any other and further relief which this Hon'ble court may

deem fit and proper.”

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 2 of 20

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the

respondents to allot an industrial plot measuring 50 sq. mts. in an industrial

area in Delhi. It is pertinent to note that the present petition has been filed by

the petitioner as sole proprietor of ‘Sunny Packers’ situated at C/o B-3/48,

Third Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.

3. At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that, initially, the present

petition was filed against respondent No.1/Commissioner of Industries

GNCTD, and during the pendency of the present petition vide order dated

11.11.2014, it was deemed appropriate by learned Predecessor Bench that

DSIIDC (Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation

Limited) is a necessary party, and accordingly, the same was impleaded as

respondent No. 2 in the present petition.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, in response to respondent’s

advertisement, the petitioner submitted an application No. 56052 on

27.12.1996 for allotment of industrial plot in functional industrial estates-

Narela, Jhilmil, Badli, Okhla, Patparganj, and in North Delhi, for relocation of

industrial unit from residential/non-conforming area. Along with the said

application, earnest money of Rs.25,000/- was also deposited. Out of the said

deposit, Rs.6,000/- was paid by the petitioner from her own funds and

Rs.18,750/- was paid by Jain Cooperative Bank on behalf of the petitioner by

advancing loan. It is stated that vide letter dated 26.05.1999, the respondent

informed the petitioner that her unit has been included in the list of units

found eligible for allotment of flatted factory measuring 50 sq. mts. under

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 3 of 20

‘Relocation Scheme’ in Jhilmil Industrial Area for draw of lots for allotment

of specific flat. Thereafter, draw of lots were held on 08.06.1999 and

petitioner was allotted 50 sq. mts. flatted factory situated at B-2/16 Jhilmil

Industrial Area at first floor. It is further the case of the petitioner that after

receipt of letter dated 26.05.1999 from respondent No.1, the petitioner

informed the respondent that heavy machinery is to be installed in the said

unit, and it would not be easy to move to the first floor, and therefore, request

was made to the respondent to allot industrial plot at the ground floor. It is

further the case of the petitioner, neither the said request was accepted nor

physical possession of the allotted plot was given to her, nor the earnest

money deposited was refunded. The petitioner approached the respondent

many times for allotment of plot but the respondent did not do the needful.

5. Thereafter, vide letter dated 27.03.2008 Jain Cooperative Bank Limited

asked the petitioner to deposit the amount with interest by 31.03.2008

advanced as loan to her, failing which the bank would inform the DSIIDC for

refund of amount lying with them, and cancel the allotment of plot. It is stated

that in pursuance of said communication by bank, the petitioner deposited

Rs.1,12,000/- with the bank, and requested to inform the balance amount so

that entire amount can be deposited for taking possession of the allotted plot.

Vide letter dated 15.05.2009, petitioner again requested the respondent to

consider her case on priority basis for allotment of plot.

6. Subsequently, the respondent took out an advertisement in Hindi

newspaper and asked the allottees to make fresh request for allotment, and

vide letter dated 15.05.2009, the petitioner once again requested the

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 4 of 20

respondent to allot the plot; however, the respondent failed to do the needful.

It is further stated that the respondent’s website under the heading “Status of

applicants under the Relocation Scheme”, has been showing that an amount of

Rs.27,042/- is lying as credit and the petitioner was eligible for allotment as

on 20.08.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 22.08.2013 to

the respondent calling upon the latter to allot the industrial plot to the

petitioner and in response to the said legal notice various pleas were taken by

the respondent which were false and frivolous. Therefore, the present petition

has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the illegal action/omission

on the part of the respondent in the non-allotment of the industrial plot to the

petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has

taken various contradictory stands with respect to allotment of plot to the

petitioner. It is submitted that, as per respondents, the allotment of plot to the

petitioner stood cancelled in 2001; however, its website even as on

20.08.2013 was showing that the petitioner was eligible for allotment and an

amount of Rs.27,042/- is lying credited with them. It is further submitted that

the petitioner had deposited the amount, as called by Jain Cooperative Bank

on 31.08.2008, by acting in consonance with letter dated 27.03.2008, and

therefore, the question of cancellation of allotment in 2001 does not arise at

all. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent has prejudiced her right for

allotment of plot and incorrect and false stand has been taken that the

allotment was cancelled and earnest money was refunded in 2001 itself. It is

further the case of the petitioner that neither allotment has been cancelled nor

any cancellation letter till date has been received nor any earnest money has

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 5 of 20

been received by her. It is further the case of the petitioner that she is entitled

for allotment of industrial plot as her factory in Khyala, Delhi, was closed in

pursuance of directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order

dated 24.01.2001 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union

of India

1

. Further, while acting in furtherance of the advertisement floated by

the respondent in 2009, whereby the allottees were asked to make fresh

request for allotment of plot under ‘Relocation Scheme’, the petitioner had

applied afresh for allotment and the said request was not acceded to by the

respondents.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has referred and

relied upon a letter dated 11.01.2000 sent to the petitioner, whereby latter was

called upon to pay an amount of Rs.5,17,812.50/- within a period of three

weeks. It is submitted that since the said payment was not made, the allotment

made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that a public

notice was published in Hindustan Times, Times of India, Punjab Kesari on

26.01.2001, and in Navbharat Times on 27.01.2001, whereby attention of all

allottees of plots/flatted factories under the Relocation Scheme to the fact that

as per the hearing held on 24.01.2001 before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,

the prayer of Delhi Government for extension of time for receipt of 100%

payment in case of allottees of Narela, Badli, Jhilmil and Parparganj

Industrial Areas as well as 50% payment in case of Bhawana upto 31.03.2001

was accepted. It was further notified to all concerned that those who do not

1

W.P. (Civil) No. 4677/1985

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 6 of 20

make the payment by said date will face cancellation of their allotment and no

further correspondence in this regard will be entertained and cancellation

letters issued earlier in this regard may be ignored.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the present

petition is barred by latches and delay as the same has been filed after expiry

of about 13 years. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that during the

proceedings in the present petition on 14.02.2025, learned counsel for

respondent no. 2 had drawn attention of the Court to affidavit dated

01.05.2024 and submitted that respondent no. 2 has been unable to locate the

file and has placed on record a scanned copy of the file. It was noted by

learned Predecessor Bench that since the document relied upon by

respondents was sent by a registered post, respondent no. 2 was directed to

file an affidavit alongwith the extract of dispatch register showing such

dispatch.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the latter had sent

a letter to DSIIDC in year 2009 and the petitioner has not received any

cancellation letter from DSIIDC. It is further submitted that there is no delay

and latches on the part of the petitioner as the cause of action accrued in her

favour was continuous and as respondent no. 2 her never communicated the

alleged cancellation of allotment, they cannot argue the issue of delay and

latches. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 7 of 20

Dharnidhar Mishra (D) And Another v. State of Bihar And Other

2

, in

support of this contention.

12. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an

advertisement was issued in 2009 once again inviting applications, and

petitioner had applied pursuant to said application. It is further submitted that

petitioner’s application was not considered on the ground that she had already

been allotted a plot, and therefore, the respondents have taken two

inconsistent and contradictory stands.

13. During the course of proceedings on 12.07.2019, 14.11.2022,

14.03.2024, and 14.02.2025, learned counsel for the respondents had sought

time to produce original files, including the proof that the letters relied upon

by them were sent to the petitioner.

14. In pursuance of directions passed vide orders dated 14.02.2025 and

01.08.2025, an affidavit dated 11.08.2025 was filed on behalf of respondent

No.2 by Bharat Bhushan, Divisional Manager (Relocation DSIIDC), wherein

it was stated by him that, in pursuance of direction with respect to filing of

affidavit alongwith extract of dispatch register showing dispatch of letter

relied upon by said respondent, respondent No.2 is unable to trace the

dispatch register of the relevant period. It is pertinent to note that, however, in

the said affidavit it has been stated that as the petitioner failed to pay the cost

of the flat in terms of order dated 24.01.2001 passed by Hon’ble Supreme

2

(2024) 10 SCC 605

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 8 of 20

Court in M.C. Mehta (supra)

3

, it was directed that all the allottees under

Relocation Scheme shall make the complete payment of the allotted flatted

factories by 31.03.2001. It is further submitted that mere writing of

request/representation does not extend the limitation and the petitioner had

not taken any steps with respect to her rights in time and therefore, she is not

entitled to any relief from this Court in the present petition.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

16. For the adjudication of the present petition, following dates and events

are relevant: -

Date Event

27.12.1996 Application submitted by the petitioner in response to

advertisement floated by respondent No.2 for allotment of

industrial plot in functional industrial Estates, Narela, Jhilmil,

Badli, Okhla, Patparganj and in North Delhi, for relocation of

industrial unit from residential/non-conforming area. Along with

the application, earnest money of Rs.25,000/- was also deposited as

per requirement

26.05.1999 Petitioner was informed by respondent No.2 by a letter that her unit

is included in the list of units which were eligible for allotment of a

flatted factory measuring 50 sq. mts. under “Relocation Scheme” in

3

W.P. (Civil) No. 4677/1985

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 9 of 20

Jhilmil Industrial Area for draw of lots for allotment of specific flat

08.06.1999 Draw of lots were held and petitioner was allotted 50 sq. mts.

flatted factory bearing No. B-2/16, Jhilmil Industrial Area, at first

floor

It is the case of the petitioner that after receipt of the aforesaid

letter, she informed the respondent that since heavy machinery is to

be installed, and same would be easy to move to the first floor, she

may be allotted industrial plot at ground floor. (It is noted that no

document has been placed on record by the petitioner in this regard)

27.03.2008 Jain Cooperative Bank Limited asked the petitioner to deposit the

loan balance due amount plus interest as on 27.03.2008 by

31.03.2008 with respect to the allotment of plots/flats under the

scheme of Relocation of Industrial units failing which the bank

would inform DSIIDC/respondent No.2 for refund of amount lying

with them as well as cancellation of allotted plot

31.08.2008 Petitioner deposited Rs.1,12,000/- with Jain Cooperative Bank

Limited and vide the same letter, she requested to inform the

balance amount so that entire amount can be deposited for taking

possession of the allotment plot

20.08.2013 Respondent No.2’s website under the heading “Status of Applicants

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 10 of 20

under the Relocation Scheme” was showing that an amount of

Rs.27,042/- is lying as credit and the petitioner was eligible for

allotment as on said date. A copy of the computer statement dated

20.08.2012 from the website of respondent is reproduced as under:

-

22.08.2013 Legal notice was sent by the petitioner through her counsel to

respondent No.2 calling upon the latter to allot the industrial plot to

the petitioner. The said legal notice reads thus: -

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 11 of 20

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 12 of 20

25.09.2013 In response to aforesaid legal notice sent by the petitioner,

respondent No.2/DSIIDC sent its reply and the same is reproduced

as under: -

“DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 13 of 20

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVEF. CORP. LTD.

419. F.I.E. 3RD FLOOR, PATPARGANJ, UDYOG

SADAN, DELHI-110092. (RELOCATION DIVISION)

DSIIDC/RL/56052/104

To

Dated 25.09.2013

Sh. Rajesh Banati (Advocate),

10/325, Sunder Vihar, Outer Ring Road,

New Delhi-110087.

Sub.: Reply to legal notice.

Sir,

Please refer to your legal notice dated 22.08.13 on the subject

cited above. In this connection, we would like to inform you

as under:

1. M/s. Sunny Packers had applied in the year 1996 for

allotment of a flatted factory of 50 sq.mtrs. for shifting of its

industrial unit from non- conforming area under the Scheme

of Relocation of Industries.

2. The firm was declared eligible for 54.75 sq.mtrs.

flatted factory at Jhilmil complex industrial area of DSIIDC.

3. The firm was then allotted a specific flatted factory

(bearing no. B- 2/16, Jhilmil industrial area) in the draw held

on 08.06.1999 & demand was raised for making payment of

cost of flatted factory allotted to the unit.

4. All such allotments of flatted factory were

supposed to make the complete payment of the allotted

flatted factories by 31.03.2001, Since, M/s. Sunny Packers

did not make any payment against the demand raised by

DSIIDC, except the EMD deposited at the time of filling of

application, the allotment in this case was cancelled.

Similar treatment was given in all such cases of defaulter.

5. The cancelled flatted factory now stands re-allotted to

some other applicant under the said scheme.

6. Since, the said firm had taken loan from Jain Co-

operative Bank Ltd., the earnest money deposited initially by

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 14 of 20

the party, was refunded to the bank.

7. Thereafter, the Jain Co-operative Bank Ltd. informed

that the loan has been cleared by the said party & as such, the

cheque was returned to us.

8. Thereafter, some requests were received from the

party to shift the allotment of the allotted flatted factory from

1st floor to ground floor. Since the allotment stands cancelled,

there was no issue of shifting the flatted factory. Even

otherwise, we do not have any policy to shift the floor of any

flatted factory so as to avoid any favoritism to any applicant.

9. Thereafter, M/s. Sunny Packers had filed a suit before

the Civil Judge, Tis Hazari. The said suit stands dismissed as

withdrawn vide order of Hon'ble Civil Judge, Delhi, West

dated 08.10.11.

In view of above, please treat this as reply to the legal

notice and advise the party for taking refund of the EMD

amount.

Yours faithfully

(sd/-)

(K.Alex)

Marager (RL)/Refund”

(emphasis supplied)

17. At the time of filing of the present petition, as per the petitioner, the

status of allotment in the official website of the respondent No.2 was showing

that she was eligible for allotment and an amount of Rs.27,042/- was lying as

credit with it. In response to the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner in the

present petition, the respondent No.2/DSIIDC in their counter affidavit dated

11.07.2016 in response to the aforesaid status of the application of the

petitioner under the Relocation Scheme on their website had stated as under: -

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 15 of 20

“14. In reply to the contents of para-13, it is submitted that the

respondent has already issued letter dated 26.03.2007 wherein the

answering respondent has requested the petitioner to submit the bank

certificate for refund of the earnest money, however the petitioner has

taken no steps to facilitate the same. The petitioner has not surrendered

the original documents issued by the answering respondent to claim the

refund of earnest money deposit, however the eligibility and allotment in

favour of the petitioner stands cancelled.”

18. During the course of hearing in the present petition, a specific stand

was taken by the petitioner that the letter of cancellation dated 11.10.2006

was never received by her, and therefore, the alleged cancellation letter was

never issued. In order to verify the same, respondent No.2 was directed to file

an affidavit along with the extract of dispatch register showing such dispatch

as also typed copies of hand written documents. At this stage, it is apposite to

refer to the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by learned Predecessor Bench of

this Court which reads as under: -

“1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to rely upon the orders dated

12.07.2019 and 14.03.2024 passed by the Coordinate Benches of this

Court to submit that substantial compliance of these orders has not been

done by Respondent No.2.

1.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to rely upon

allocation/allotment letter dated 11.01.2000 wherein the Petitioner was

directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,17,812.50/- within a period of three

weeks from the date of the letter to submit that there is no proof of

dispatch of this communication on the basis of which the cancellation

has been directed by Respondent No.2 which is the subject matter of

challenge in the present Petition.

2. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 draws attention of the Court to

the affidavit dated 01.05.2024 to submit that Respondent No.2 has been

unable to locate the file and has put a scanned copy of the file on record.

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 16 of 20

3. Since, the document sought to be challenge states therein that it was

sent by a registered post, Respondent No.2 is directed to file an affidavit

along with the extract of dispatch register showing such dispatch. In

addition, Respondent No.2 is directed to file typed copies of the hand

written documents annexed along with the affidavit. Let the needful be

done within a period of four weeks.

3.1 In the event, the affidavit is not filed in the stipulated time, the

concerned officer shall remain physically present before the Court on the

next date of hearing to assist the Court.

4. List on 01.04.2025.”

19. In pursuance of aforesaid order, including orders dated 12.07.2019,

14.11.2022, and 14.02.2025 passed the learned Predecessor Bench, and order

dated 01.08.2025 of this Court, respondent No.2/DSIISC has placed on record

following affidavit dated 11.08.2025 by the Divisional Manager (Relocation),

DSIIDC, wherein, it has been stated as under: -

“1. I state that I am working as Divisional Manager (Relocation)

with the Respondent No. 2 Corporation and competent to swear the

present affidavit.

2. I state that Respondent No. 2 on 01.05.2024 had filed an

affidavit stating that the Respondent No. 2 has been unable to

locate the original file. The Respondent No. 2 along with the said

affidavit had filed on record the scanned copy of some documents

available.

3. This Hon'ble Court had vide order dated 14.02.2025 has

directed that since, the document sought to be challenge states

therein that it was sent by a registered post, Respondent No.2 is

directed to file an affidavit along with the extract of dispatch

register showing such dispatch.

4. I state that after all best efforts, the Respondent No. 2 is

unable to trace the dispatch register of the relevant period.

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 17 of 20

5. However, I state that the Petitioner has failed to pay the cost

of the flat in terms of the Order dated 24.01.2001 passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of M. C Mehta V

Union of India wherein it was directed that all the allotees under

the relocation scheme shall make the complete payment of the

allotted flatted factories by 31.03.2001. Copy of order dated

24.01.2001 is annexed as Attachment-A.

6. I further state that the Respondent No. 2 thereafter even issued

Public Notice in Hindustan Times on 26.01.2001, The Times of

India on 26.01.2001 and Punjab Kesri on 26.01.2001. Copy of the

Public Notice issued in the newspaper is annexed as Attachment-

B.

7. That vide the abovementioned public notice, it was informed

to all concerned as under:

"ATTENTION

ALLOTTEES OF PLOTS/FLATTED FACTORIES UNDER THE

RELOCATION SCHEME

In the Supreme Court hearing held on January 24th, 2001 the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the prayer of Delhi

Government for extension of time for receipt of 100% payment in

the case of allottees of Narela, Badli, Jhilmil and Patparganj

Industrial Areas as well as 50% payment in the case of Bawana

upto 31st March, 2001. All concerned may note that those who do

not make the payment by the above date will face cancellation of

their allotment and no further Cancellation correspondence in this

regard will be entertained letters issued earlier in this regard may

be ignored."

8. It is further submitted that the present writ petition is barred by

delay and latches as the allotment was cancelled way back on

11.10.2006 even the suit filed by the petitioner was withdrawn in

the year 2011. It is well settled that mere writing of the requests /

representations does not extend the limitation. The petitioner has

not taken any steps to enforce its right in time and, therefore, is not

entitled to any relief from this Hon’ble Court.

9. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the present writ

petition be dismissed”

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 18 of 20

20. In the affidavit dated 11.08.2025 filed on behalf of respondent

No.2/DSIISC, it is also stated that in pursuance of the order dated 24.01.2001

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MC Mehta (supra), the following

public notice was published in Hindustan Times and The Times of India on

26.01.2001 and Punjab Kesari on 26.01.2001: -

“ ”

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 19 of 20

21. In these circumstances, even if, the cancellation letter dated 11.10.2006

as claimed by the petitioner was not received, there is clear publication in

pursuance of the order dated 24.01.2001 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in M.C. Mehta (supra). Since the payment was not made by the

petitioner by 31.03.2001, the allotment was cancelled. This stand has been

clearly taken by the DSIIDC in its reply dated 25.09.2013 to the legal notice

of the petitioner in paragraph 4.

22. The aforesaid publication would apply across the board to all the

allottees who could not make the payment in time. Admittedly, the payment

made to the Bank by the petitioner was in 2008 much after the deadline given

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (supra) which was also

published by way of aforesaid public notice in various newspapers wherein, it

was also recorded as under: -

“All concerned may note that those who do not make the payment by the

above date will face cancellation of their allotment and no further

correspondence in this regard will be entertained. Cancellation letters

issued earlier in this regard may be ignored.”

23. It is also pertinent to note that that the petitioner had not placed on

record any document or communication with respect to her request for

shifting of the allotment of her flatted factory to ground floor. Admittedly, the

allotment was made in the year 1999 and the next communication placed on

record by the petitioner is of the year 2008 to Jain Cooperative Bank Limited

showing her willingness to deposit the entire amount for loan taken by her

from the said bank for obtaining industrial flat/shed at Jhilmil. However, by

W.P.(C) 7780/2013 Page 20 of 20

that time the allotment already stood cancelled in view of the order dated

24.01.2001 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (supra).

24. In these circumstances, relief as prayed for in the present petition

cannot be granted. However, the respondent No.2/DSIIDC shall refund the

earnest money deposit within a period of six weeks in accordance with law.

25. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the

present case, the present petition is dismissed and disposed of.

26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

27. Copy of the judgment be sent to respondent No.2/DSIIDC for

necessary information and compliance.

28. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA

(JUDGE)

FEBRUARY 27, 2026/bsr/ns