DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ASHOK KUMAR BEHAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 20-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
ASHOK KUMAR BEHAL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 20, 2002 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Precedent-Value and binding nature of-Law laid down by Division 
Bench contrary to the law laid down by another Division Bench of the same 
C High Court-Referred to Full Bench which resolved the conflict of views-
Held, decision of full court binding-Inconsistency and contradiction in the 
orders passed by the same court should be avoided in order to bring about 
certainty in the mind of subordinate courts and litigant public-Urban 
Development-Escalation in price of flats-Justification oj 
D 
Regarding registration of flats under Registration Scheme on New 
Pattern, 1979, prices of the flats were revised by the appellant authority 
in 1990. Respondent-allottees filed writ petitions in High Court challenging 
the revised rate. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ 
petitions holding the revision of rate as arbitrary and illegal. However, 
similar writ petitions were dismissed on merit by another Division Bench 
E earlier. 
F 
In another set of writ petitions before High Court for similar relief, 
it was prayed that the writ petitions be disposed of in terms of the 
judgment impugned in the present appeal. In view of the divergent views 
expressed by two different Benches of equal strength, the matter was 
referred to Full Bench. 
In the present appeals, it was contended that the correctness of the 
view expressed in the impugned judgment ought not to have been doubted. 
The matter was adjourned· till the pronouncement of the Full Bench 
G Judgment. Full Bench arrived at a conclusion contrary to the view 
expressed by Division Bench in impugned judgment. However, Full Bench 
observed that the Division Bench went into the question of escalation of 
price because, Court's queries regarding the same, were not answered. 
Special Leave to appeal against the decision of Full Bench was dismissed 
in limine and so during the hearing of the present appeals, respondent-
H 
622 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ASHOK KUMAR BEHAL 
623 
allottees sought permission to file appeal and the permission was granted. A 
Respondent-allottees contended that the view expressed in the 
impugned judgment was not overruled by Full Bench; rather the same 
was approved and that since Division Bench in the impugned judgment 
decided the case on the peculiar facts of the case, the ratio of the decision 
of the Full Bench Judgment is not applicable. 
B 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The impugned judgment is set aside and the writ 
petitions filed by the respondents are disposed of in terms of the order 
passed by Full Bench of High Court. [631-B) 
C 
1.2. The Full Bench did not approve the view expressed by the 
Division Bench in the impugned judgment. It simply stated that the 
Division Bench mighi have come to the conclusion because the Authority 
failed to place the relevant "l"terial before the Court to explain how the D 
price fixation had been done and on what basis. Court queries in this behalf 
were not answered, which led to the belief that the appellant authority 
was suppressing something and had acted arbitrarily to the prejudice of 
the writ petitioners. The relevant material bad been placed before the 
larger Bench and the Bench after taking into consideration the material 
placed before it came to the conclusion that the revised price was neither E 
arbitrary nor illegal. The inconsistency in the views expressed in the 
impugned judgment and the larger Bench of High Court is self-evident. 
High Court bas resolved the conflict of views expressed by the Division 
Benches of co-equal strength by constituting a larger Bench and the special 
leave petition filed against the judgment of the larger Bench has already F 
been dismissed. (630-C, D, E) 
Smt. Sheelawanti and Anr. v. D.D.A. and Anr., AIR (1995) Delhi 212 
approved. 
1.3. Inconsistency and contradiction in the orders passed by the same G 
Court on the same point regarding the same scheme cannot be allowed to 
be continued or perpetuated. If the plea of the respondents Is accepted 
then an anomalous situation would arise by which the price fixed for few 
of the MIG flats in the scheme would be much less than the price fixed 
for the remaining flats allotted in the same year, which cannot be 
permitted. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all H 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A court

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