Important Point
Prospective overruling is not only a part of constitutional policy but also an extended facet of stare decisis and is not judicial legislation.

Headnote:Haryana Urban Development Authority, 1988—Section 30—Legality of allotment of plots made under the discretionary quota—In S.R. Dass v. State of Haryana, 1988 PLJ 123 formulated certain principles on which such allotment could be made with certain conditions followed by Govt. of Haryana for a decade—Then Anil Sabharwal v. State of Haryana & Ors. dated 21.3.1997—New principles set out—Whether doctrine of prospective overruling be applied?— High Court showed its inability—Matter went to Apex Court—In HUDA v. Anil Sabharwal & Ors., 1998(5) Supreme 324, Apex Court, directed to avoid any discrimination between allottees subsequent to 31.10.1989 —Scope of that direction—Doctrine of prospective overruling applied from 23.4.96—Appeals allowed accordingly.
       Held : The question for consideration now is in what manner discrimination between the allottees subsequent to 31.10.89 can be avoided. In relation to classification made by the High Court, the grievances are made before us that the same does not take note of cases of (i) bona fide purchasers, who did not have sufficient funds with them to start the construction and who have not acquired these plots without any profit motive; (ii) allottees to whom possession was not handed over in time for them to commence construction who stand on the same footing as those in respect of whom exception is made, who have made construction on the plots in question; (iii) members of armed forces and Indian Administrative Officers who are also involved in an operation like ‘Blue Star’, the allotments could not be cancelled and the matters will have to be examined in the light of the same principles as had been done with reference to those who were in the armed forces and fighting for the defence of the country; (iv) certain other classes still who are disabled either on account of serious ill health or such as blindness. These instances are taken by way of sample by us to indicate that the classification made by the High Court in respect of whom exception is made will have to be reclassified or sub-classified or further classifications will have to be made. That would be carving out too many exceptions involving a very lengthy and treacherous exercise to be sucked in a quagmire from which to extricate oneself will be well nigh impossible. Further when the decision of the High Court in S.R. Dass v. State of Haryana, 1988 PLJ 123 had held the field for nearly a decade and the Government, the HUDA and the parties to whom the allotments have been made have acted upon and adjusted their affairs in terms of the said decision to disturb that state of affairs on the basis that now certain other rigorous principles are declared to be applied in Anil Sabharwal’s case would be setting the rules of the game after the game is over, by which several parties have altered their position to their disadvantage. Therefore, we think that in the larger public interest and to avoid the discrimination which this Court had noticed in the order dated 5.12.1997 the decision of the High Court in Anil Sabharwal’s case should be made effective from prospective date and in this case from the date on which interim order had been passed on 23.4.1996. Therefore, it would be appropriate to fix that date as the date from which the judgment of the High Court would become effective. If this course is adopted, various anomalies pointed out in respect of different parties referred to above and other instances to which we have not adverted to will be ironed out and the creases smoothened so that discrimination is avoided. Prospective declaration of law is a device innovated by this Court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration of law it is deemed that all actions taken contrary to the declaration of law, prior to the date of the declaration are validated. This is done in larger public interest. Therefore, the subordinate forums which are bound to apply law declared by this Court are also duty bound to apply such dictum to cases which would arise in future. Since it is disputable that a court can overrule a decision there is no valid reason why it should not be restricted to the future and not to the past. Prospective overruling is not only a part of constitutional policy but also an extended facet of stare decisis and not judicial legislation. These principles are enunciated by this Court in Baburam v. C.C. Jacob & Ors., 1999(3) SCC 362, and Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1997(5) SCC 201 : 1997(4) Supreme 450. These appeals, therefore, stand allowed to the extent indicated above and declaring that the judgment of the High Court in Anil Sabharwal v. State of Haryana & Ors. shall be effective from 23-4-1996. In the event in any of the cases any allotment has been cancelled, the same shall be brought in conformity with the order made by us whether those allottees are parties in these proceedings or not. The declaration made by us will have a general application. It is also made clear that allotment orders made prior to 23-4-1996 can be cancelled if they are not made in conformity with the decision in S.R.Dass v. State of Haryana (supra), after following due procedure. The appeals are allowed accordingly modifying the order made by the High Court in the manner stated above. (Paras 5 to 9)
       Held (regarding writ petitions) : In the light of the order made by us in the above appeals, these writ petitions have become unnecessary as the authorities concerned are bound to bring their orders of cancellation of the allotments made or notices issued to them for cancellation of the allotments in conformity with the order made in the above appeals which we have disposed of just now. Therefore, these writ petitions have become unnecessary and shall stand disposed of accordingly. No costs. (Para 10)

Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.—

C.A. No. 6840/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 10542/1998), C.A. No. 6841/2001 @ SLP (C) No. 11193/1998), C.A. No.6842/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 4762/1998), C.A. Nos. 6843-44/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 12767-12768/1998), C.A. No. 6845/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 12770/1998), C.A. No. 6846/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 928/2000), C.A. No. 6847/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 1482/2000), C.A. No. 6848/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7128/2000), C.A. No. 6849/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7120/ 2000), C.A. No. 6850/200l (@ SLP (C) No. 7122/2000), C.A. No. 6851/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7123/2001), C.A. No. 6852 /2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7117/2000), C.A. No. 6853/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7125/2000), C.A. No. 6854/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7126/2000), C.A. No. 6855/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7119/2000), C.A. No. 6856/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7121/2000), C.A. No. 6857/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7124/2000), C.A. No. 6858/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 16857/1999), C.A. No. 6859/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 19344/1999), C.A. No. 6860/2001, (@ SLP (C) No. 7127/2000), C.A. No. 6861/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7026/2000), C.A. No. 6862/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7030/2000), C.A. No. 6863/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 12982/1998), C.A. No. 6864/2001 (@ SLP (C) No.7031/2000), C.A. No. 6865/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7013/2000), C.A. No. 6866/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7016/2000), C.A. No. 6867/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7029/2000), C.A. No. 6868/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7018/2000), C.A. No. 6869/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7020/2000), C.A. No. 6870/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7025/2000), C.A. No. 6871/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7024/2000), C.A. No. 6872/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7021/2000), C.A. No. 6873/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7008/2000), C.A. No. 6874/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7019/2000), C.A. No. 6875/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7023/2000), C.A. No. 6876/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7015/2000), C.A. No. 6877/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7027/2000), C.A. No. 6878/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7118/2000), C.A. No. 6879/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7116/2000), C.A. No. 6880/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7115/2000), C.A. No. 6881/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 20722/2000), C.A. No. 6882/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 1979/2001), C.A. No. 6891/ 2001 (@ SLP(C) No.17246/2001 CC 5241), C.A. No. 6883/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 12455/2000), C.A. No. 6884/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 12456/2000), C.A. No. 6885/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 12461/2000), C.A. No. 6886/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 12463/2000), C.A. No. 6887/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7767/2000), C.A. No. 6888/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7900/2000), C.A. No. 6889/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 4571/2001), C.A. No. 6890/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 3445/2001)

Leave granted in all SLPs.

2. These appeals are directed against an order made on 21st March, 1997 in a batch of cases wherein the scope of Section 30 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1988 came up for consideration. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that the Government can make reservation of plots while making development of the urban estates but that power is not limited. However, the argument that the absolute power could vest in the Chief Minister in allotment of plots according to his discretion and choice and such discretion is immune from judicial scrutiny is rejected and the High Court stated that the distinguished and needy people in all walks of life can be granted land only on the basis of some guidelines and indicated that the Government of Haryana may frame appropriate policy for allotment of plots to specified class of persons and notify such policy and allotment under such policy should be made by inviting applications through public notice from all those who belong to a particular class. However, in respect of certain allotments that had already been made the High Court indicated that certain class of persons such as those who are bona fide purchasers who had constructed houses and other buildings, original allottees who had constructed buildings after permission from HUDA, members of the armed forces, police personnel who fought against terrorism, civilians who were affected by the terrorists activities and allottees of plots to whom small extends have been granted and the High Court gave certain directions in that regard. This decisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1350

Important PointProspective overruling is not only a part of constitutional policy but also an extended facet of stare decisis and is not judicial legislation.

Cases Referred (3)

Important Point
Prospective overruling is not only a part of constitutional policy but also an extended facet of stare decisis and is not judicial legislation.