Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1992 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1992 (9) TMI 318 - SC - Indian LawsLegality and validity of the policy decision of Government of India containing the guidelines regarding the procedure for allotment of land by the Delhi Development Authority to different Cooperative Group Housing Societies questioned Held that:- High Court has taken a very reasonable view in holding that the expression "first come first served" appearing in Rule 6(vi) of Nazul Rules relate to the seniority with reference to the date of Registration of Group Housing Societies with the Registrar. The High Court rightly held that there has to be certainty in the seniority with reference to which priority in the matter of allotment is to be given and fixation of such seniority cannot be left to the whims and fancies of any official. It was not at all necessary to find out which of the Societies were likely to get allotments from DDA and to implead them as parties in the Writ petitions. That apart, no real prejudice was caused to the Societies which were likely to be benefitted by the new criterion. Since the allotments in their favour were made with express condition that such allotments would abide by the decision to be rendered in the Writ Petitions and such allotments were liable to be cancelled on account of the decision to be made in the pending Writ Petitions, the Group Housing Societies likely to be affected by the Judgment in the Writ Petitions could take steps for being impleaded in the proceedings and contest the same if they had so desired. It also appears to us that in any event the new policy decision as contained in the impugned memorandum of January 20, 1990 should not have been implemented without making such change in the existing criterion for allotment known to the Group Housing Societies if necessary by way of a public notice so that they might make proper representation to the concerned authorities for consideration of their view-points. Appeal dismissed.
|