BRIG. (RETD) D.K JETLEY versus ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATION AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 09-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

BRIG. (RETD) D.K JETLEY 
v. 
ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATION AND ANR. 
MAY 9, 1995 
A 
(AM. AHMADI, C.J., R.M .. SAHAI AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
B 
Housing: 
Am1y Welfare Housing Organisation-Allotment of flats-Four 
Claimants for two flats--<Jnly two are entitled-Conflicting orders passed by C 
different courts--<Jbviously under misapprehension of facts-Direction for 
allotment-lssued. 
In 1979 the respondent-Organisation undertook to construct 422 
flats in Som Vihar (R.K. Puram, New Delhi). It invited applications from 
the Officers, both serving and retired, in 1979. 932 persons registered D 
themselves. 21 flats were reserved for ex-army service personnel. For 
remaining 401 flats lots were drawn. The appellant and two others were 
placed in the list of allotment at SI. No. 102, 146 and 346 respectively. 
The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,100 on 24th December, 1979 
as initial deposit for getting himself registered. He deposited another sum 
of Rs. 35,000 as required, beyond seventeen days. Since there was delay, he 
deposited interest at the rate of six per cent for delayed payment. It was 
accepted and he was allotted placement at No. 102 in the seniority list. 
Sometime in 1981 the respondent took a decision that since the 
deposit was made beyond 17 days, the allotment in his favour was liable 
to be cancelled and bis seniority was pushed down to 895. This was 
challenged by the Appellant before the High Court which passed an order 
restraining the respondent from allotting Flat No. C-306 F-305 at R.K. 
Puram to anybody till further orders. 
On coming to know of this orders, D, another officer, moved an 
application before the High Court that he was allotted Flat No. F-305; 
therefore, the order directing that F-305 be kept reserved, may be recalled. 
This application ~s allowed by the High Court. 
E 
F 
G 
G, another officer, moved an application before the High Court for H 
103 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A recall of the order passed in favour D. This application was also allowed 
by the High Court. 
K, another officer, filed an application claiming that Flat No. C-306 
had been reserved for him. 
B 
Aggrieved by the orders, the appellant preferred the present Appeal. 
Disposing of the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. There are four claimants for two Oats in Som Vlhar. 
Everyone claimed that he was entitled to these Oats and placed reliance on 
C order of one or the other court passed in his favour. The position that 
emerges from various proceedings and the affidavits filed on behalf of the 
respondent is that the seniority of the appellant and D at SI. No.102 and SI. 
No.146 has become final. The orders obtained hy G. and K were obviously 
under misapprehension of facts. If the courts would have been aware that 
D the seniority orthe appellant and D stands restored at SI. Nos. 102 and 146 
then probably these conflicting order could not have been passed. Flat No. 
F-305, Som Vlhar, R.K. Puram and Oat No. C-306 shall be allotted to D and 
the appellant respectively. Flat in Noida, Ghaziabad and Oat at Faridabad 
shall be allotted to Kand G respectively. [108-F, 109-G, 111-D) 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5460 of 
1995 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.2.92 of the Delhi High Court 
in F.AO. (OS) No. 131 of 1991. 
F 
Arun Jaitley, Shiv Dayal Srivastava, S.K. Bagga, M.N. Krishnamani, 
G 
R.K.P. Shankardass, Ms. Nandini Gore, R. Karanjawala for Ms. M. 
Karanjawala, AK. Tewari, Ms. Tanuj Bagga, 
Seeraj Bagga, 
Mrs. S. 
Bagga, Subhash Oberoi, AK. Sinha and Rishi Kesh for the appearing 
parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. SAHAI, J. Four senior officers occupying high ranking office 
in the Army, now retired, are litigating for allotment of flats in Som Vihar 
(RK. Puram, New Delhi) for the last fifteen years. How the controversy 
H has arisen giving rise to four appeals, two filed by Brig. Jetley, one by U. 
.... 
D.K. JE1LEY v. ARMY WELFARE HSG. ORGN. [R.M. SARAI, J.] 
105 
Col. Gupta and one filed by the Union of India shall be narrated presently A 
but they do not leave a very satisfactory impression. All these officers have 
been running from the lowest court in the hierarchy to the highest Court. 
And we are sorry to says so at times without disclosing correct facts. The 
Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) which has been established 
by the Union of India to construct houses for army personnel, both in 
service and retired 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.