2013 Supreme(SC) 353
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD & FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - APPELLANT
VERSUS
SARVPRIYA SEHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. AND ANR. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3265 OF 2013
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 1343 OF 2009)
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - APPELLANT
VERSUS
SHIVALIK SEHKARI AVAS SAMITI AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3266 OF 2013
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 23967 OF 2011)
Decided On : APRIL 11, 2013
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 136 - U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - Section 12 – quash - registered Housing Cooperative Society and its claim is that most of its members - appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 1343 of 2009. Sarvpriya is a registered Housing Cooperative Society and its claim is that most of its members are from the Indian Army, Border Security Force, Air Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Delhi Police and other Government Departments. The object of the Sarvpriya is to provide residential accommodation to its members. It was registered in the year 1981. Sarvpriya purchased land from the land holders during the period 1981 to 1985 in the Village Wazidpur within Tehsil Dadri in the District of Ghaziabad from the funds contributed by its members. During that period neither Ghaziabad Development Authority nor NOIDA were in existence and, as such, the layout plan prepared by Sarvpriya was approved on 3rd of December, 1982 by the Chief Town and Country Planner. Later, an agreement was entered into between Sarvpriya and the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, whereby Sarvpriya was allowed to carry out the development activities as per the layout plan –Held, State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the Authority or Chairman for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or direction issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit - Provided that the State Government shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard Chief Executive Officer of the Industrial Development Authority constituted under U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976. It needs no emphasis that such an order can be passed in respect of the Industrial Development Authority in view of Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976 by such Departments of the State Government which have administrative control over the Industrial Development Authority. However, we hasten to add that in case such a power is exercised by such a Department of the State Government it shall have no bearing on the Development Authorities constituted under the President’s Act No. 11 of 1973. The decision taken by one administrative department concerned with Industrial Development Authority shall not apply to the Development Authorities within administrative control of another Department of the State Government or vice versa unless a conscious decision is taken to apply the same to both the categories of authorities in case the rules of executive business of the State so permits – appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as “NOIDA”, in these special leave petitions filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 20th of June, 2008 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41065 of 2003 (Sarvpriya Sahakari Avas Samiti Limited v. State of U.P. through Special Secretary & Anr.) and order dated 15th of July, 2010 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67362 of 2005 (Shivalik Sahakari Avas Samiti through Secretary v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary & Ors.). By those orders NOIDA has been directed to give benefit of Government Order dated 22nd of October, 2002 to each of the writ petitioners, respondent no. 1 herein i.e. Sarvpriya Sahakari Avas Samiti Limited, hereinafter referred to as “Sarvpriya” and Shivalik Sahakari Avas Samiti, hereinafter referred to as “Shivalik”.
Leave granted.
As direction given in both the appeals is identical and facts are similar, both have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
For the purpose of these appeals we have taken the facts from the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 1343 of 2009. Sarvpriya is a registered Housing Cooperative Society and its claim is that most of its members are from the Indian Army, Border Security Force, Air Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Delhi Police and other Government Departments. The object of the Sarvpriya is to provide residential accommodation to its members. It was registered in the year 1981. Sarvpriya purchased land from the land holders during the period 1981 to 1985 in the Village Wazidpur within Tehsil Dadri in the District of Ghaziabad from the funds contributed by its members. During that period neither Ghaziabad Development Authority nor NOIDA were in existence and, as such, the layout plan prepared by Sarvpriya was approved on 3rd of December, 1982 by the Chief Town and Country Planner. Later, an agreement was entered into between Sarvpriya and the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, whereby Sarvpriya was allowed to carry out the development activities as per the layout plan within a period of two years.
While the aforesaid development activities were going on, the State Government, in exercise of its power under Clause (d) of Section 2 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 declared an area of 748 acres of land in Village Wazidpur as industrial development area, which was to form part of the New Okhla Industrial Development Area. It included land belonging to Sarvpriya. But, it seems that despite the aforesaid area having been declared as an industrial development area, Sarvpriya continued to carry on the activities of colonization and illegal plotting. Accordingly, by notice dated 21st of September, 1994, NOIDA called upon Sarvpriya to remove the unauthorized construction within a stipulated time. Sarvpriya replied to the aforesaid notice inter alia stating that it had developed the land and asserted its right for further development on the basis of the sanction order and terms of agreement between it and the District Magistrate. Sarvpriya also chose to challenge the aforesaid notice in a writ petition filed before the High Court but the challenge has ultimately failed.
Sarvpriya thereafter wrote to the State Government to either permit it to develop residential plots or to allot a suitable developed plot. Sarvpriya also resorted to a proceeding before the Monopoly Restrictive Trade Practices Commission but the same was dismissed. While the request of Sarvpriya for allotment of a suitable developed plot was pending, in response to a notice dated 24th of July, 1999, Sarvpriya by its representation dated 28th of July, 1999 requested to settle the dispute outside the court by either allowing it to retain the present site or to allot a suitable alternative developed piece of land to enable its members to raise housing colony for their residence. It seem