SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 76

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
HIRALAL CHAWLA AND ANOTHER
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS.
Writ Petition No. 975 of 1986, decided on February 13,1990
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Advocates appeared :
D.D. Thakur and V.C. Mahajan, Senior Advocates (S. Markandaya, G.S. Rao, Sreepal Singh and Ms Kusum Chowdhary, Advocates, with them) for the Petitioners; R.N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate (S.C. Batra and Raju Ramachandran, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.

Advocates:
D.D.THAKUR, G.S.Rao, Kusum Chaudhary, R.N.TRIVEDI, RAJU RAMACHANDRAN, S.C.Batra, S.Markandaya, SRIPAL SINGH, V.C.MAHAJAN

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 – Civil Matter - Allotment of land for residential purposes - New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) - Counsel urged that NOIDA will be entitled to escalation charges for year 1981 and 1982 which works out at rate of Rs 20 per square metre - He repeatedly pointed out that NOIDA would be entitled to same under scheme - May be there was substance in submission - However, having regard to fact that a sum of Rs 5.50 crores has already been deposited by allottees with NOIDA for some time and as scheme had not been implemented as per time schedule provided in scheme itself, to meet (sic) possession of plot to each allottee had to be handed over somewhere in 1982 and which would be now done in 1985 pursuant to directions yet without setting a precedent and having regard to facts of this case and special circumstances pointed out to this Court with regard to present position, we are of opinion that NOIDA is not entitled to escalation charges for year 1981 and 1982 - Held, Court have already indicated that this Court in its order had not agreed for any escalation charges - More than five years have since rolled by - Turn of events have taken an unwieldy course - Prices have gone up in every sphere and rupee has lost its value over years - To bind NOIDA by terms of its scheme at this point of time would not at all be fair - Town planning in NOIDA is said to be in accordance with norms laid down by itself and same are prescribed by Board of which Chief Town and Country Planner of Uttar Pradesh is a member - We direct that all norms laid down by NOIDA in matter of development shall be strictly followed - Supervision of this operation of course shall be by NOIDA but we hope and trust that federation of different societies would cooperate with NOIDA in this regard - Writ petition is disposed of.

Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.- The dispute in this group of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution relates to allotment of land for residential purposes by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (shortly known as NOIDA). NOIDA is a trans-Jamuna housing project set up by the Uttar Pradesh Government in the year 1976. Prior to the setting up of the NOIDA, the Defence Services Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and other societies had acquired lands in the area for purposes of housing of their members and when the same came to be notified for acquisition for NOIDA, Writ Petition No. 9034 of 1983 was filed challenging the acquisition; the federation also filed a separate writ petition being No. 1588 of 1984. Some other writ petitions by the different parties were also filed. On January 14, 1985, after hearing parties a bench of this Court inter alia made the following directions:

"Both sides presented a fair and nearly accurate picture of the present situation. Spirit of reconciliation rather than confrontation prevailed all throughout. All reasonable suggestions emanating from both sides either accepted or seriously considered by both sides with a view to implementing the scheme under which plots were to be allotted. Only three points remain which necessitated courts intervention. Having examined them we direct:

(1) NOIDA shall hand over actual possession of plots to each allottee of each society involved in the dispute. To identify them a list setting out their names has to be supplied within six weeks from today.

(2) Mr G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel urged that NOIDA will be entitled to escalation charges for the year 1981 and 1982 which works out at the rate of Rs 20 per square metre. He repeatedly pointed out that the NOIDA would be entitled to the same under the scheme. May be there was substance in the submission. However, having regard to the fact that a sum of Rs 5.50 crores has already been deposited by the allottees with the NOIDA for some time and as the scheme had not been implemented as per time schedule provided in the scheme itself, to meet (sic) possession of plot to each allottee had to be handed over somewhere in 1982 and which would be now done in 1985 pursuant to the directions yet without setting a precedent and having regard to the facts of this case and special circumstances pointed out to this Court with regard to the present position, we are of the opinion that the NOIDA is not entitled to escalation charges for the year 1981 and 1982.

(3) The third point of a minor difference was that a special charge has to be paid by all allottees whose plots are said to be situated at a comparable advantageous position, such as, corner plots, plots abutting to the main road or both etc. There may be advantage in taking the corner plot or a plot abutting on the road, but that is fortuitous and not by ones volitional selection. Having regard to the special facts of this case and the element of luck in getting a particular plot we direct that the NOIDA would not be entitled to collect special charge or anything extra for such plots. We order accordingly.

It was further pointed out that there were some applicants who applied for the plots but who failed to keep to the time schedule in the matter of payment. If the number of such applicants had not been very large, the court would have examined each case. But the number of such applicants appears to be quite big.

Mr Soli Sorabjee, learned counsel, in this connection pointed out that under the interim orders of this Court dated September 3, 1980, amongst others NOIDA was directed to reserve 269 acres of land in sectors 41 and 42 or in adjoining sectors in addition to the land already allotted to the petitioners. Therefore, their cases deserve consideration as requisite area of land is available.

At the suggestion of the court Mr G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel agrees to appoint Shri Z.H. Kazmi, Law Assistant Registrar (Housing), Lucknow who would be specifically directed t

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top