Back
1994 Supreme(Guj) 298
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.N.Divecha
ASHUTOSH SARKARI KARMACHARI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 10463 of 1993
Decided On : 10/20/1994
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14 and 226 - Discrimination in fixation of price for allotment of surplus land - Land @ 800/- per square metre offered to petitioner Co-operative Society - Whereas, other Co-operative Societies alloted land at much lower rate - Applications for allotment made at the same time - Inordinate delay caused in fixation of price in case of petitioner society - Held, arbitrary discrimination proved - Impugned order quashedIt transpires from the record that the application of Sinchainagar was disposed of within seven months and that of Padmakunverba within about 14 months. Simply because their applications were to be considered by a different Committee from the Committee which was to consider the petitioners application would not justify the inordinate delay in disposal of such applications. Inordinate delay in disposal of the petitioners application for allotment of land has resulted in unreasonable fixation of its price vis-a-vis the price at which the land has come to be allotted to Sinchainagar and Padmakunverba. In that view of the matter, the fixation of price of the land proposed to be allotted to the petitioner can be said to be exorbitant or unreasonably high. It could not have been fixed at more than Rs.500/- per square metre. The fixation of price of the land proposed to be allotted from the disputed land to the petitioner at Rs.800/- per square metre is arbitrary and cannot be upheld in law. That decision deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[Paras 7 & 12]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Judicial review of administrative action - Fixation of allotment price of surplus land - Inordinate delay caused - Held, it amounts to procedural impropriety amendable to judicial review.
Judicial review of an administrative action can be had on the ground of irrationality. namely, Wedenesbury Unreasonableness and/or Procedural Impropriety. As pointed out hereinabove, the imordinate delay in considering the petitioners application has resulted in irrationality which can be styled as Wedenesbury Unreasonableness to borrow the aforesaid phraseology from the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court. The inordinate delay is also attributable to "Procedural Impropriety", again to borrow the phrase used in the aforesaid binding ruling of the Supreme Court. It cannot be gainsaid that the inordinate delay in consideration of the application is highly improper by any stretch of imagination unless exceptional circumstances are brought on record to justify such delay. No attempt is made by or on behalf of the respondents to bring on record the circumstances justifying the inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.1 in considering the petitioners application for allotment of surplus land from the disputed land. The action on the part of respondent No.1 in fixation of the price of the land proposed to be allotted to the petitioner at Rs.800/- per square metre can therefore be said to be tainted with "procedural impropriety". That action can certainly be reviewed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the aforesaid binding ruling of the Supreme Court.
[Para 9]
( 1 ) THE fixation of the price at Rs. 800. 00 per square metre for the land to be allotted to the petitioner is under challenge in this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are not many and not much in dispute. Certain parcels of land bearing final plot No. 955 of Town Planning Scheme no. 1 of Rajkot (the disputed land for convenience) was available for disposal under sec. 23 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief ). It originally admeasured 14,266 square metres. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage that respondent No. 1 has passed one resolution on 30th May 1987 laying down certain guidelines for disposal of surplus land under Sec. 23 of the act. A copy of the aforesaid Government Resolution is at Annexure-A to this petition. Thereunder, Co-operative Housing Societies comprising of Government employees as members are considered eligible for grant of surplus land at the prevalent market price without putting such land to auction. The petitioner is a Co-operative housing Society having some 60 Government employees as its members. It appears that the petitioner made one application for allotment of some 6,900 square metres of land from the disputed land. It may be mentioned at this stage that one Sinchainagar Karmachari Co-operative Housing Society (Sinchainagar for convenience) and one Padmakunverba Karmachari Co-operative Housing Society (Padmakuverba for convenience) also applied for allotment of land from the disputed land. It appears that Sinchainagar was granted in all 1,495 square metres from the disputed land by the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 4th december 1991. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. The price fixed for grant of such land to Sinchainagar was at Rs. 450. 00 per square metre. This was pursuant to the valuation given by the Deputy Town Planner of Rajkot by his communication of 13th August 1991. Its copy is at Annexure-E to this petition. It appears that about a year after the order at Annexure-F to this petition, Padmakunverba was also granted in all 3,976 square metres from the disputed land by the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 16th November 1992 at the rate of Rs. 475. 00 per square metre. Its copy is at Annexure-G to this petition. It may be mentioned at this stage that, under the Government Resolution at Annexure-A to this petition, respondent No. 1 has constituted Committees for processing applications for allotment of land. If the prevalent price of the land for which an application for allotment is made is Rs. 25 lakhs or less, the application would be processed by the Committee consisting of certain Secretaries mentioned in the Government Resolution at annexure-A to this petition. If such price is above Rs. 25 lakhs, the Committee consisting of certain Ministers as mentioned in the Government Resolution at annexure-A to this petition would process the application for allotment of surplus land. It is the case of the petitioner that Sinchainagar made its application for allotment of surplus land sometime in March 1991. The deponents of the affidavitin- reply have, however, come with the case that such application was made on 17th january 1989. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has disputed that position. According to the petitioner, Sinchainagar made its application on 17th January 1989 for allotment of land from some other surplus land and not from the disputed land. The application by Sinchainagar for allotment of the disputed land, according to the petitioner, was made in May 1991. This factual position is not seriously disputed by or on behalf of the respondents. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the fact that Sinchainagar made its application for allotment of surplus land from the disputed land in May 1991. This becomes clear from one representation made by the petitioner to the concerned Minister f
