Monday, July 06, 2026
info@thelawobserver.in
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Non-Reportable

Can Industrial Units Claim More Than One Plot Under Relocation Policy? Supreme Court Says No

Jai Bhagwan Goel Dal Mill & Ors. vs Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Listen to this judgment

4 min read

Key Takeaways

• A court cannot uphold the allotment of multiple plots to an industrial unit merely because separate applications were submitted.
• Under the relocation policy, the maximum plot size for industrial units is restricted to 250 sq. mtrs.
• Units operating from multiple premises must have their plot requirements combined under the relocation policy.
• The right to allotment under the relocation policy is not a vested right but a right to fair consideration.
• The Supreme Court will not intervene in policy decisions unless there is a clear breach of fair consideration.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the issue of plot allotment under the relocation policy for industrial units in the case of Jai Bhagwan Goel Dal Mill & Ors. vs Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. The court ruled that industrial units cannot claim more than one plot, even if they submitted separate applications for multiple plots. This decision clarifies the interpretation of the relocation policy and its implications for industrial units operating in non-conforming areas.

Case Background

The appellants, Jai Bhagwan Goel Dal Mill and others, were operating two industrial units for processing Moong and Masoor Dal in Delhi. These units were located in areas designated for relocation due to the non-conforming nature of their operations. Following a Supreme Court order from 1996, the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIDC) issued a public notice inviting applications for the allotment of industrial plots for relocation. The appellants submitted two applications for separate plots and were provisionally deemed eligible for allotment.

In 2004, the DSIDC informed the appellants that they had been allotted two plots of 250 sq. mtrs. each. However, in 2006, the DSIDC communicated that due to the relocation policy, only one plot could be allotted to the appellants, as both units shared the same title and partners. The appellants were asked to choose which plot to retain, leading to their challenge in the High Court.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appellants' Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of a single judge, which upheld the DSIDC's decision to limit the allotment to one plot. The High Court found that the DSIDC's actions were in line with the relocation policy and that the appellants had no vested right to retain both plots.

The appellants argued that the policy should not apply to them as they had submitted separate applications for each plot. However, the High Court maintained that the policy was clear in its intent to restrict allotments based on the combined area of operations.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal, examined the policy decisions made by the Delhi government regarding the relocation of industrial units. The court noted that the decisions taken in a Cabinet meeting and subsequently circulated in a memorandum clearly indicated that units applying for plots larger than 400 sq. mtrs. would be limited to a maximum of 250 sq. mtrs. Furthermore, units operating from multiple premises would have their requirements combined.

The court emphasized that the initial allotment of two plots to the appellants was contrary to the relocation policy. It stated that the right to allotment under the policy is not a vested right but rather a right to fair consideration. The court found no justification for the appellants' claim that they should be allowed to retain both plots based on their separate applications.

Statutory Interpretation

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the relocation policy highlighted the importance of adhering to the guidelines set forth by the Delhi government. The court underscored that the policy was designed to address the acute scarcity of land for industrial purposes and aimed to ensure fair distribution among eligible units. The decisions made in the Cabinet meetings were deemed relevant and binding, reinforcing the need for compliance with the established criteria for plot allotment.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is significant for industrial units seeking relocation under the Delhi government's policy. It clarifies that the policy's restrictions on plot allotment are strict and must be adhered to, regardless of the number of applications submitted. The ruling reinforces the principle that rights under government policies are not absolute and can be subject to change based on policy revisions. This decision serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar issues of plot allotment and relocation policies.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Jai Bhagwan Goel Dal Mill and others, upholding the High Court's decision and the DSIDC's policy regarding plot allotment. The court ruled that the appellants were entitled to retain only one plot under the relocation policy, thereby affirming the government's stance on land allocation for industrial units.

Case Details

  • Case Reference: Jai Bhagwan Goel Dal Mill & Ors. vs Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
  • Court: In The Supreme Court Of India
  • Date of Judgment: September 02, 2014

Official Documents

More Judicial Insights

View all insights →
Can Circumstantial Evidence Alone Secure a Conviction? Supreme Court Weighs In
Can Assessees Carry Forward Losses Under Section 72 IT Act? Supreme Court Clarifies

Can Assessees Carry Forward Losses Under Section 72 IT Act? Supreme Court Clarifies

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Bangalore and another vs M/s Wipro Limited

Read Full Analysis
Can a Rape Case Be Filed After 34 Years? Supreme Court Sets the Limit

Can a Rape Case Be Filed After 34 Years? Supreme Court Sets the Limit

Suresh Garodia vs The State of Assam and Another

Read Full Analysis