2001 (9) TMI 1171 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope of Section 30 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1988.
2. Validity of discretionary allotment of plots by the Chief Minister.
3. Prospective application of judicial decisions.
4. Classification and exceptions in plot allotments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of Section 30 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1988:
The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 30 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1988, as interpreted by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court had ruled that while the Government can reserve plots during urban estate development, this power is not unlimited. The High Court rejected the argument that the Chief Minister has absolute discretion in plot allotment immune from judicial scrutiny. The High Court mandated that distinguished and needy individuals could be granted land based on guidelines and that the Government of Haryana should frame and notify an appropriate policy for such allotments, inviting applications through public notices.

2. Validity of discretionary allotment of plots by the Chief Minister:
The High Court had previously addressed this issue in S.R. Dass vs. State of Haryana, 1988 PLJ 123, establishing principles and conditions for discretionary allotments. However, in Anil Sabharwal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 1987 (2) PLR 7, new principles were set, leading to a conflict. The High Court found no reason to maintain the allotments made under the discretionary quota by respondent No. 3 and rejected the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling by the High Court, stating that only the Supreme Court could invoke such power.

3. Prospective application of judicial decisions:
The Supreme Court considered the prospective application of the High Court's decision in Anil Sabharwal's case. The Court noted that the High Court's decision should be effective from a prospective date to avoid discrimination and anomalies. The Court fixed 23.4.1996, the date of the interim order, as the effective date for the High Court's judgment. This approach was adopted to prevent reopening settled issues and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, aligning with principles of prospective overruling as part of constitutional policy and stare decisis.

4. Classification and exceptions in plot allotments:
The Supreme Court addressed grievances regarding the High Court's classification of exceptions for certain allotments. The Court highlighted cases of bona fide purchasers, delayed possession, armed forces members, and individuals with serious health issues, indicating that further classifications would complicate the matter. The Court emphasized that the decision in S.R. Dass's case had been followed for nearly a decade, and altering the established state of affairs based on new principles from Anil Sabharwal's case would be unfair. The Court declared that the High Court's judgment in Anil Sabharwal's case would be effective from 23.4.1996, ensuring that all allotments made prior to this date should conform to the decision in S.R. Dass's case, following due procedure.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court's order to make the judgment in Anil Sabharwal's case effective from 23.4.1996. It clarified that allotments made prior to this date could be cancelled if not in conformity with S.R. Dass's decision, following due procedure. The Court's decision aimed to avoid discrimination, ensure fairness, and maintain public interest by applying the principles of prospective overruling. The writ petitions related to the case were disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed.