HARSH DHINGRA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS,

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 446 · Decided: 28-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
·B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HARSH DHINGRA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS, 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2001 
rs~ RAJENDRA BABU, DORAISWAMY RAJU AND K.G. 
BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Urban Development and Town Planning : 
Haryana Urban D'lvelopment Authority Act, 1988: Section 30. 
Allotment o.f plots-Discretionary quota-High Court.formulated certain 
principles on which such allotments could be made' with certain corU:litions-
This decision held the field .for nearly a decade-Subsequently, in another 
decision High Court set out new principles and refused to make the decision 
effective prospectively-Supreme Court upheld cancellation of allotment of 
discretionary quota made after 3.J -10-1989-Discrimination between allottees 
subsequent to 31~10-1989-Avoiding of-Held: Subsequent decision o.f High 
Court made e.f.fei:tivefrom the date of passing o.f interim order i.e. 23-4-1996-
This course will iron out and smoothen the creases and avoid discrimination-
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles, 141 and 226. 
Doctrine: 
"Doctrine of Prospective Overruling~Explained. 
A Division Bench of the High Court in S.R. Dass s case, while examining 
the scope of Section 30 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 
1988 regarding allotment of plots under discretionary quota, formulated 
certain principles on which such allotments could be made with certain 
conditions. For nearly a decade the decisions were taken by the State 
Government in terms of the decision of this case. 
Subsequently, the High Court in Anil Sabharwals case formulated 
G ·certain new set of principles in the matter of making discretionary allotment. 
But the High Court refused to apply this decision prospectively. The appeal 
against this decision was dismissed by this Court with certain observations. 
This Court also upheld cancellation of the allotments out of the discretionary 
quota made after 31-10-1989. Hence this appeat 
H 
The following question arose before this Court :-
446 
. 
~ 
HARSH DHINGRA v. STATE 
447 
In what manner discrimination between the allottees subsequent to 
A 
31-10-1989 can be avoided? 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. In the larger public interest and to avoid the discrimination 
between the allottees subsequent to 31-10-1989 the decision of the High Court 
in Anil Sabharwal's case should be made effective from a prospective date 
and in this case from the date on which interim order had been passed on 23· 
4-1996. If this course is adopted, various anomalies in respect of different 
parties will be ironed out and the creases smoothened so that discrimination 
is avoided. [452-G-H] 
Anil Sabharwal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 2 PLR 7, overruled 
prospectively. 
r 
S.R. Dass v. State of Haryana, (1988) PLJ 123, referred to. 
2. Prospective declaration oflaw is a device innovated by this Court to 
avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. 
It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By 
the very object of prospective declaration of law it is deemed that all actions 
taken contrary to the declaration of law, prior to the date 
of declaration are validated. This is done in larger public interest. 
Therefore, the subordinate forums, which are bound to apply the law declan.'CI 
by this Court, are also duty bound to apply such dictum to cases, which 
would arise in future. Since it is indisputable that a court can overrule a 
decision there is no valid reason why it should not be restricted to the future 
and not to the past. Prospective overruling is not only a part of constitutional 
policy but also an extended facet of sfare dedsis and not judicial legislation. 
(452-H; 453-A·B] 
Babu ram v. C.C. Jacob, (1999] 3 SCC 362 and As/wk Kumar Gupta v. 
State of U.P., (1997] 5 SCC 201, relied on. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6840 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.98 of the Punjab and Haryana G 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 5851 of 1996. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 6841, 6842, 6843-44, 6845, 6846, 6847, 6848, 6849, 6850; 
6851, 6852, 6853, 6854, 6855, 6856, 6857, 6858, 6859, 6860. 6861, 6862, 
H 
448 
SUPREME cquRTREPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
6863, 6864, 6865, 6866, 6867, 6868, 6869, 6870, 6871, 6872, 6873, 6874, 
6875, 6876, 6877, 6878, 6879, 6880, 6881, 6882, 6891, 6883; 6884, 6885, 
6886, 6887, 6888, 6889, 6890 of 2001. 
B'. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
AND 
Writ Petition (C) No. 256 of 1998. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
WITH 
W.P. (C) Nos

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