IMPORTANT POINT
Vesting of land in State – Appropriate area can be carved out from Sector 43 of NOIDA and provision can be made for multi-storeyed complex.

ORDER :

Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals at the instance of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (‘NOIDA’, for short) take exception to the interim order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (‘the High Court’, for short) in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 58555 of 2005, 58702 of 2005 and 61630 of 2005; and in First Appeal No.790 of 2008. Said Writ Petitions were filed by Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited (‘Respondent-Society’, for short) challenging the orders passed in Ceiling proceedings holding that there were excess lands in the hands of said Respondent–Society which vested in the State.

3. Certain parcels of land were purchased by Respondent-Society from some individual land holders. According to the authorities, the transfers in favour of Respondent-Society were illegal on two counts.

i) Such transfers were effected in violation of the provisions of Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (‘U.P. Act’, for short) and, therefore, the lands vested in the State Government.

ii) The second objection pertains to the applicability of Ceiling Law in terms of which any holding greater than 12.5 acres would vest in the State Government.

4. The submission on behalf of Respondent-Society, on the other hand, was that in keeping with the recommendations made by Khodaiji Committee constituted by the concerned respondents, whenever any land held by a Cooperative Society was acquired by NOIDA, 40% of the acquired land would be allocated to the members of such Cooperative Society by way of plots. In the exercise so undertaken, 1754 persons, who were members of the Respondent- Society were found eligible and land admeasuring 3,23,650 sq.ft. was directed to be allocated by NOIDA to said 1754 members. Accordingly, allotment letters were also issued by NOIDA in favour of said 1754 members, who, in turn, deposited Rs.19 crores constituting 40% towards down payment, followed by three equal half yearly instalments along with interest totalling to Rs.17 crores. Thus, Rs.36 crores in all were deposited by said 1754 members.

5. There were numerous complaints about fake membership of Respondent- Society. An enquiry was therefore undertaken by Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of NOIDA, who recommended cancellation of allotment made in favour of said members of Respondent-Society. Consequently, after issuance of show cause notice dated 08.07.1997, NOIDA issued letter dated 05.05.1998 cancelling all such allocations. This, in turn, resulted in a challenge which was initially accepted by the High Court vide its decision in Writ Petition No.39842 of 2001. The decision was, however, reversed by this Court in New Okhla Indutrial Development Authority vs. Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, (2006) 9 SCC 524 - Civil Appeal No. 1569 of 2004. It was held by this Court that the High Court could not have gone into issues of fact in Writ Jurisdiction.

6. Around the same time, in three Ceiling Proceedings initiated concerning lands held by Respondent-Society, it was concluded by the authorities that there were excess lands which vested in the State Government. Three Writ Petitions were, therefore, filed by Respondent-Society before the High Court being Writ Petition Nos. 58555 of 2005, 58702 of 2005 and 61630 of 2005 challenging said decisions rendered under the Ceiling Law.

7. A Civil Suit being Original Suit No. 273 of 2006 was also filed by Respondent-Society as a sequel to the decision rendered by this Court in NOIDA case[(2006) 9 SCC 524 - Civil Appeal No. 1569 of 2004], challenging the letter dated 05.05.1998 issued by NOIDA cancelling the allocations made in favour of said 1754 members. Said Suit was allowed by the Trial Court setting aside the letter dated 05.05.1998 issued by NOIDA. It was, however, held that the Respondent-Society could not have acquired any land after 27.02.1988 i.e., after the issuance of No