Back
High Court Of Delhi
VIKAS VIHAR CO OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 806 of 1986
Decided On : 06/01/1987
LAND ALLOTMENT - ARBITRARINESS - ARTICLE 14 - DELHI DEVELOPMENT ACT - NORMS AND GUIDELINES: Allotment of land to cooperative societies by the Union of India without following any norms or guidelines is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India allotted 27 acres of prime land in South Delhi to nine respondent Cooperative Group Housing Societies on 31. 3. 1986. The petitioners, other Cooperative Societies, challenged the legality and propriety of the allotments, alleging mala fides, favoritism, and abuse of authority in favor of Ministers, ex-Ministers, M. Ps., their relatives, and high Government officials.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Union of India had admitted through its counter-affidavit that no norms or guidelines were followed while making the impugned allotments. The court also found that the allotment was made to cooperative societies of which Ministers and M. Ps. were members, without formally superseding the Ministerial decision taken in 1961 and the ban on allotment imposed in 1972 and 1981.
Issues: 1. Whether the allotment of land to cooperative societies without following any norms or guidelines is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the allotment of land to cooperative societies of which Ministers and M. Ps. were members is mala fide, favoritism, and abuse of authority?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allotment of land to cooperative societies without following any norms or guidelines is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, where it was held that "State owned or public-owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain percepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration." 2. The court held that the allotment of land to cooperative societies of which Ministers and M. Ps. were members is mala fide, favoritism, and abuse of authority. The court found that the allotment was made without following any objective criteria and that it was intended to benefit the Ministers and M. Ps.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order dated 31. 3. 1986 and the individual allotments dated 2. 4. 1986. The court directed the Union of India to reconsider whether the land in question should be allotted to the co-operative societies at all or whether the land should be reserved for the general pool staff housing. In case it is decided to allot the land to co-operative societies, it should be done in accordance with the norms and guidelines laid down in the light of observations made by the court.
( 1 ) OUR task in these writ petitions is rendered easier byunion of India admitting through its counter-affidavit that no norms or guidelines were followed while making the impugned allotments. In these days ofrumours and alleged scandles the forthnight stand taken by Union of India issingularly welcome. Admission of a mistake creates hope for future. It hasfreshness of Rajnigandha as the name of one of the petitioner societies suggests.
( 2 ) THERE is prime land, about 70 acres, in the heart of South Delhi,covering part of Andrews Ganj and Sadiq Nagar. About 27 acres of land areallotted by the Union of India to nine respondent Cooperative Group Housingsocieties on 31. 3. 1986. Within short period of about eight-ten days the allotment letters were sent, the premium amount was paid and physical possessionwas given to the Societies. These petitions, filed by the other Cooperativesocieties challenge legality and properiety of the allotments of the nine societies. Apart from Union of India, the then Minister of Works and Housing and somesenior officials of the said Ministry have been joined personally as respondentsin the writ petitions. Broadly, the complaint of the petitioners is that theallotment in question is a case of mala fides, favourtism and abuse of authorityin favour of Ministers. ex-Ministers, M. Ps. , their relatives and high Government officials belonging to the concerned Ministry. The other ground of theirchallenge is that no norms or guidelines were followed in the said allotmentregarding the allotments arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of theconstitution.
( 3 ) GRABBING of material benefits and lands is now so widespread thatit has paralysed all legal processes and norms of private and public morality. No section of society is free from it. Mr. Bhandare, Advocate, was quite rightin referring to the discretionary allotment of plots to Judges and its abuse insome States. The reason is not always poverty or struggle for the roof overthe head. Otherwise, how do we explain large scale sales of the jhuggi jhonpriplots, allotted by the Government, and putting of new jhuggis at new sites bythe allottees. Some is the case of commercialisation and profit making ofhouses in walled city (to which the Slum Area Act applies), leases of nazul landin the prestigious area of New Delhi and illegal construction of farm houses on elite farms around Delhi. The legal process is further subverted by flooding the courts with petitions for protections of illegal gains and acquisitions. Lawful effort of the Lt. Governor at demolitions is thwarted every time bypolitical interference and by court stays. The real question to be answered byevery petitioner is whether he would decline an allotment unspuported by anynorm and which is an act of favouritism to him. It may sound as a paradox,but is all the same true. The courts are effective only if the deviations are marginal. But if they are wide spread and if there is no social reprobation, the judicialcontrol becomes empty and loses teeth. This enormous and pervading malignency,in the moral and political life of this country, is out of reach of thecourts, inspite of our boast that arms of law are very long.
( 4 ) BUT, this is not an excuse for ignoring the legitimate grievances. Asolution has to be attempted within the confines of law. We have a duty toprevent arbitrariness in Executive actions and transgression of law. Sincethe Union of India has partially conceded the petitioners claim on thiscount, we need not go to the other pleas of the petitioners. But Mr. Bhandare,advocate, and Mr. K. N. Bhatt, Advocate, have submuted that no reliancecan be placed on Government s affidavit dated 4th December, 1986 (partiallyconceding the petitioners claim) because earlier the Government had filedan affidavit, on 29. 4. 1986, justifying the allotment in question. We hadcalled for the original record in regard to these allotments. In view of the saidsubmissions for the counsel
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
