TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere 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. - SLP(C) 10857 OF 1991 - - - Dated:- 17-9-1992 - S Mohan and G Ray, JJ. ORDER 1. Legality and validity of the policy decision of Government of India dated January 20, 1990, containing the guidelines regarding the procedure for allotment of lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istration with the Registrar. Out of 2600 Societies which applied for registration 1406 Societies were registered. The Societies had to apply and obtain registration by satisfying all the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and the rules framed thereunder. On March 13, 1984, the Registrar issued a public notice in the leading newspapers of Delhi to the following effect: DDA has now intimated that they would now consider allotment of land to Group Housing Societies registered in 1983-84. Those Societies who have closed their membership and desire to seek land through DDA are requested to submit their membership list and other documents to the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on prescribed proforma available with the office from 20th March, 1984 onwards. 2. In view of such notice, 1406 Societies which had got themselves registered were required to submit their final membership list to the Registrar and such are also required to submit other documents on the prescribed proforma. The list was required to be submitted on or before March 20, 1984. No time limit, however, was stipulated for the submission of such list. On May 13, 1985, another public noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocieties. It was specifically mentioned in the criteria for allotment that the allotment was being made in accordance with the seniority i.e. serial no and date of registration of Societies with the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi, subject to filing the list of members for verification by the Registrar and payment of 25% of the cost of land within 30 days and payment of the remaining 75% within 90 days from the date of issue of demand notice. 3. On January 20, 1990, the impugned Office Memorandum containing the guidelines regarding the procedure for allotment of land was issued by the Government of India to the following effect: The undersigned is directed to refer to the minutes of the meeting held in this Ministry on 23rd October, 1989, circulated to all concerned by our O.M. of even number dated 13.11.1989 and to convey the approval of this Ministry to the procedure outlined below in the matter of allotment of land to Group Housing Societies in Delhi. (a) The date of seniority for allotment of land for a Cooperative Group Housing Society will be date on which the papers of the Society have been found in order and approved by the office of the Registrar, Cooperati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the allotment order it was specifically mentioned that the proposed allotment was subject to the outcome of the result of the Writ Petitions. It was also stated in the letter of allotment that if it was felt necessary in view of the decision in the Writ Petitions, the allotment may have to be reviewed and cancelled in which case the entire amount received by the DDA from the allottee Societies shall be refunded without any payment of compensation or damages. 4. For the purpose of appreciating the contentions of the parties on the question of propriety, legality and validity of the said memorandum dated January 20, 1990, it may be necessary to refer to Rule 6(vi) and Rule 21 of the Nazul Rules. Such Rule 6(vi) and Rule 21 are set out hereunder: Rule 6 (vi) Subject to the other provisions of these rules the Authority shall allot Nazul land at the predetermined rates in the following cases, namely: (vi) to cooperative group housing societies, cooperative housing societies, consumer cooperative societies and cooperative societies of industrialists on first come, first serve basis. Rule 21 Nazul land of such size, as the authority may, from time to time, decide with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired for forming the Cooperative Societies should be 10, in the public notice of July 16, 1983, the minimum members required for being eligible for allotment of land are 60 and the maximum numbers are 300. The High Court has held that the term first come first served is referable to the date and serial no of registration of Group Housing Societies pursuant to the public notice dated July 16,1983. The High Court has also indicated that the respondents including the DDA had all along, until the formulation of new criteria in the impugned memorandum dated January 20, 1990, followed the principle of giving priority in the matter of allotment of land to the Group Housing Societies with reference to date of registration of the concerned Societies and in the Brochure of 1992 of DDA such principle was clearly mentioned. The High Court has held that when DDA itself has understood Rule 6 in the aforesaid manner and has followed the criterion of priority with reference to date of registration, ambuguity, if any, in Rule 6 (vi) for not explaining the expression first come first served stands resolved. The High Court has also indicated that the term first come first served means that tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court that the list which was approved by the Registrar after elapse of 5 1/2 years was the same which had been submitted to it by the Society on May 11, 1984 and there was no change in the membership. The High Court has noted that on the other hand there are Societies where the verification was done most expeditiously and the High Court has cited the case of a Society at serial No. 91, the verification of which was submitted within one day of the submission of the list. It has been noted by the High Court that there are about 11 such Societies where the verification was completed within 17 days of their submission of the list of members. It has also been noticed by the High Court that there are about 25 other Group Housing Societies where the list was verified within a month. On the other hand, there are at least 12 other Societies where the lists were verified after a number of years from the date of submission even though no defects were indicated in the list originally filed. 6. It has been held inter alia by the High Court that the only exercise which had to be undertaken by the Registrar after March 17, 1984 was to verify whether the lists which had been submitted were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the date of the judgment. The High Court also issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot lands to the Group Housing Societies according to seniority i.e. the date of registration on the basis of fresh list to be prepared within three months from the date of the judgment. The names of those societies should be provisionally included in the seniority list whose verification is yet to take place and their names would be subject to deletion if the lists are rejected within the stipulated period of three months for any reason whatsoever. The High Court has also directed that the allotment should take place with respect to the land which was a subject matter of the draw of January 17, 1991 and such allotment should be completed within a period of six months from the date of the Judgment. The allotment to the Societies which were registered prior to the petitioners' Societies or such Societies which were registered under 'Awas Sakar Yojna' will not in any way be affected by the Judgment of the High Court. 7. Mr. Madhva Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the special leave petition, has contended before us that priority on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approval of list of eligible members within the parameter of 60 and 300 is an essential condition for getting allotment and if the impugned circular has indicated by laying down a principle that the date of final approval of a list of members of registered Societies will be determining factor for priority in the matter of allotment, it cannot be contended that such principle or guideline is in any way unreasonable, improper and/or unjust or illegal and without jurisdiction. Mr. Reddy has submitted that the Central Government has an authority to issue guideline for allotment of land by DDA and such guideline not having infringed any statutory Rule, and the same being fair and reasonable for the aforesaid reasons, was not liable to be quashed. Consequently the impugned Judgment of the High Court setting aside the allotment made or proposed to be made to Group Housing Societies on the basis of the guideline contained in the same memorandum dated January 20,1990 is also unjust and illegal and the impugned Judgment of the High Court should, therefore be set aside. Mr. Reddy has contended that the brochure was issued in 1982. Such brochure, therefore, cannot outweigh the statutory rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly for a long period and by such process they are bound to suffer a serious prejudice not only on account of escalation of cost of construction with the lapse of time but also on account of getting refund of hard earned money paid by such Societies after a long lapse of time without any interest whatsoever as directed in the impugned Judgment. 9. Mr. Ganguli, appearing for one of such intervenors, has further contended that Rule 21 is of no assistance for interpreting Rule 6(vi) and the scope and import of the said rules have been wrongly understood by the High Court. He has contended that the said two Rules are entirely for different purposes and the expression first come first served in Rule 6(vi) has not been indicated and explained in the Nazul Rules and it was, therefore, open for the Central Government to issue guidelines consistent with the principle of fairness and reasonableness by indicating what should be the principle for allotment in terms of Rule 6(vi) on the basis of first come first served 10. Mr. Salve, appearing for the respondent No. 4, Kaveri Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited has supported the impugned decision of the High Court and has submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d policy. He has, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for and this special leave petition should be dismissed. 11. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned Counsel appearing for the DDA, has submitted that in the brochure which was published by the DDA, it was clearly indicated that allotment should be made on the basis of the date of the registration. He has also submitted that registration is an essential condition to become eligible to get allotment and previously it was on the basis of the date of registration, the priority for allotment has been given. He has also stated that after the impugned decision of the High Court, the Central Government has taken into consideration the reasonings given by the High Court and having accepted the reasons has not preferred any appeal from the said judgment and the impugned circular has been withdrawn by the letter dated August 2, 1991. He has made it clear that the DDA has no objection in making allotment with reference to the date of registration. 12. Mr. S.S. Ray the learned Counsel also appearing for some of the parties in support of the decision of the High Court has submitted that apart from the fact that it is only just and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference 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 has been submitted before us by Mr. Reddy and other learned Counsels in support of the Special Leave Petition that there has been irregularities in the matter of registration and in all cases registration has not been made strictly on the basis of earlier receipt of the application for registration. We are not oblivious of the proverbial inefficiency of the Government Department and statutory bodies and it is quite likely that registration has not always been made strictly according to the point of time when the applications for registration were received. But the serial numbers of registration need not be disturbed after such long lapse of time. It may be noted that until the new criterion for allotment was given in the impugned memorandum of January 20, 1990, priority in the matter of allotment to Group Housing Societies had all along been given with reference to date of Registration. In the brochure of 1982 of the DDA, such policy of priority was clearly indicated. If in spite of this, the Societies which claim that they s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, the provisional allotments would be cancelled and the deposits made for allotments would be returned without any interest. In our view, in such facts 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. 15. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n' imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'. Within the conspectus of fair dealing in case of 'legitimate expectation', the reasonable opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to be affected by any change of consistent past policy, come in. We have not been shown any compelling reasons taken into consideration by the Central Government to make a departure from the existing policy of allotment with reference to seniority in Registration by introducing a new guideline. On the contrary, Mr. Jaitley the learned Counsel has submitted that the DDA and/or Central Government do not intend to challenge the decision of the High Court and the impugned memorandum of January 20,1990 has since been withdrawn. We therefore feel that in the facts of the case it was only desirable that before introducing or implementing any change in the guideline for allotment, an opportunity to make representations against the proposed change in the guideline should have been given to the registered Group Housing Socieites, if necessary, by way of a public notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
