Back
High Court Of Delhi
AUDYOGIC KARAMCHAM GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Civil 309 of 1974
Decided On : 12/20/1977
EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE UNION OF INDIA TO DISPOSE OF ITS OWN LAND UNDER ARTICLE 298 OF THE CONSTITUTION - EXERCISE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 14 - DIRECTIONS BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGARDING DISPOSAL OF NAZUL LAND - ISSUANCE UNDER DELHI DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1957 OR ARTICLE 298 - DISTINCTION BETWEEN AMBITS OF RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner and Respondent 3 were group housing cooperative societies. Petitioner's members worked in Okhla Industrial Area in South Delhi, while Respondent 3 had no such restriction. Both applied for allotment of land in South Delhi, but their applications were rejected due to scarcity of land. Respondent 3 took up the matter with the Minister concerned, citing special reasons for being in the South Delhi area. The Central Government directed the Delhi Development Authority to allot a suitable plot of land to Respondent 3 in South Delhi, which was done. Petitioner challenged this allotment as illegal, mala fide, and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
1. The petitioner had locus standi to challenge the grant of land to Respondent 3 as it was affected by the grant and had a right to equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. The reasons for the grant of land to Respondent 3 fell under Article 298 of the Constitution rather than under the direction issued in pursuance of section 22 (3) of the Delhi Development Act. 3. The allotment to Respondent 3 was not contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution and was valid under Article 298 of the Constitution as the petitioner and Respondent 3 fell into two different classes and their claims could not be compared. 4. The grant of 4.25 acres to Respondent 3 Society was in excess of the direction contained in Annexure F, paragraph 1 (e), but this ceiling may not be relevant as the grant was justifiable mainly under Article 298.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the grant of land to Respondent 3? 2. Whether the reasons underlying the grant of land to Respondent 3 were to be covered by direction issued under section 22 (3) of the Delhi Development Act or only by Article 298 of the Constitution? 3. Are these reasons contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution? 4. Whether the grant of land is otherwise unnecessary or excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government is under an obligation to observe the constitutional requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution while developing land and allotting plots to different persons and bodies for different purposes. This obligation requires them to give an equality of opportunity to the various applicants and to fairly consider the applications of all of them. 2. The content of the considerations which may justify the Government in granting land under section 22 (3) is not supplied by the Delhi Development Act, so the ambit in which these considerations can operate is much wider under Article 298. The considerations urged by the petitioner for grant of land are certainly relevant under Article 298, but this does not secure the success of the petition as the application has been considered and rejected on the ground of scarcity of land. 3. The petitioner and Respondent 3 fall into two different classes, so the merits of their respective claims cannot be compared with each other. The allotment to Respondent 3 is not contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution and is valid under Article 298 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) TWO important questions of law arise in this writ petition, namely :-
(1) How the executive power of the Union of India to dispose of its own land under Article 298 of the Constitution is to be exercised in compliance with its obligation under Article 14 of the Constitution not to deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws ?
(2) Whether the directions given by the Central Government to the Delhi Development Authority regarding the disposal of nazul land could be issued only under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 particularly under section 22 (3) thereof o)- also under Article 298 in exercise of executive power and the difference between the ambits of relevant considerations which may underlie a direction issued under the statute or the Constitution as the case may be ?
THE importance of these questions is accentuated by the fact that land with a building potential in Delhi and particularly in South Delhi is scarce and the Central Government as the owner of nazul land has to do the very difficult task of choosing some from numerous applicants for allotment of plots of land.
( 2 ) NAZUL land belonging to the Central Government in Delhi which is placed by it at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority under section 22 (1) of the Delhi Development Act has to be dealt with by the Authority in accordance with the Rules made and directions given by the Central Government in that behalf under section 22 (3) of the Act. The basic policy of the Central Government in this regard was conveyed to the Delhi Development Authority by letter dated 3rd January 1972 (Annexure F to the Writ petition ). This letter was treated by the learned counsel for the parties in their arguments before us as being in the nature of directions issued under section 22 (3) of the Act. It lays down the manner in which the allotment of plots should be made to the group housing societies in the different parts of Delhi/new Delhi, namely :-
(A) Six such societies should be allotted land in South Delhi in view of commitments already given to them by the Government of India/delhi Administration. Since land in South Delhi is scarce, no other group housing society need be considered for allotment in that area for the present. The price of land in South Delhi may be fixed higher than that applicable to other areas as suggested by the D. D. A.
(B) Group housing societies other than the six mentioned. above should be considered for allotment in other areas (Rohtak Road, Najafgarh Road and Shahdara ). Care should, however, be taken to see that group housing societies consisting of members working in a particular area, e. g. . University teachers and lecturers are allotted land in: that part of Delhi which is nearest to the place of their employment as far as possible.
(C) Allotment should be made to the societies in order of their date of registration.
(D) Not relevant.
(E) Allotment of land to group housing societies should be made on the basis of 50 apartments per acre with a 15 per cent variation. Ordinarily, not more than 2 acres should be allotted to a group housing society.
(F) No flat/apartment will have carpet area exceeding 200 sq. feet.
( 3 ) THE petitioner and Respondent 3 are both group housing cooperative societies. The members of the petitioner society consist wholly of persons working in the various industrial establishments-of the Okhla Industrial Area in South Delhi. In fact, bye-law No. 5 (i) (h) of the petitioner society confine eligibility to be a member of the society only to a person who is an employee of an industry situated in the Okhla Industrial Estate or its vicinity. Respondent 3 society has, however, no such restriction on its membership. Any one who is domiciled in Delhi, New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment and who does not own a dwelling house or a plot therein can become a member of the society. Out of its 214 members, only members I to 25, 67 to 71, 97 to 136 are employees of the Jamia Mil
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
