HIRA TIKKOO versus UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 65 · Decided: 13-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

HIRA TIKKOO 
A 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. 
APRIL 13, 2004 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952/Chandigarh 
Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973-Section 3(3) /Rules 4, 6 and 
JO-Allotment of Industrial Plots-Full or Part payment by allottees-Major C 
portion of the land under the Scheme was a reserved forest and restricted 
under Aircrafts Act-Possession not given to many allottees-Due to paucity 
of land decision of Administration to give the allottees alternate plots of 
smaller sizes-Some al/ottees consented to it while the non-consentees went 
into litigation-Draw of lots made to allot the land to consentees-Litigaiion 
of non-consentees caused delay in getting possession by the consentees-Writ D 
Petition by consentees seeking possession-High Court directed to give 
possession to the consentees successful in the draw of lots at the rate prevailing 
on the date of draw-Non-consentees not given the plots-Other consentees 
directed to be accommodated in other Schemes-Plea of non-consentees that 
they were entitled for possession of land as they had vested right in that and E 
also on the basis of doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory 
Estoppel-On appeal, held: Non-consentees not entitled to possession on the 
basis of original allotment-Vested right cannot be claimed which would result 
in violation of statutory provision or Constitution or against general public 
interest-Overriding public interest outweighs the obligation of a promise or 
representation of Administration-Consentees and Non-consentees by their F 
action and inaction constitute two different classes and a differential treatment 
cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Comtitution-Order as 
regards allotment to consentees is justified-However, the price of the land is 
to be frxed at the rate.prevailing at the time of original allotment-The relief 
is not applicable to those who were not parties before the Court as they would 
be presumed to have abandoned their claims-Constitution of India, 1950- G 
Article 14. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrines of 'Legitimate Expectation' and 'Promissory Estoppel' -
65 
H 
66 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Applicability of-Held: Where public interest is likely to be harmed, the 
doctrines cannot be pressed into service by any citizen against State Authority. 
Maxims: 'Salus populi est suprema lex' and 'Lex non cogit ad 
impossibilia' 
B 
Applications for allotment of industrial plots were invited by 
respondent-Administration. Out of the applicants 339 were short listed for 
allotment in 1982. But 254 allottees could not be given possession of the 
plots allotted to them, as the land was declared as reserved forest by 
Notification issued in 1961. Though the Administration could not deliver 
the possession but continued to accept the payment for the land. Pursuant 
C to Writ Petition by allottees, Administration proposed to allot one kanal 
land to each allottee irrespective of the size of plot originally allotted. In 
1990, Administration framed a new Industrial Policy whereby it decided 
to reduce the size of 4 kanals and 2 kanals of pfots by 25% so as to 
accommodate and to enable itself to allot plots to all 254 allottees. In view 
D of the new policy, earlier proposal to allot 1 kanal plot to each allottee 
was withdrawn. Allottees of plots measuring 4 kanals and 2 kanals were 
asked to give their consent for accepting reduced size of plots. The option 
was not a~ked from the allottees of plots measuring 1 kanal. Some allottees 
gave their consent. On 27.3.1991 draw of lots was held for allotting 
alternative plots. The non-consentees filed Writ Petition challenging the 
E Notification declaring the area as reserved forest, as also the Industrial 
Policy of 1990 and the decision to reduce the size of the plots. The petition 
was dismissed. Some non-consentees filed another Writ Petition 
challenging the Industrial Policy of 1990 and others filed Letters Patent 
Appeals. The petitions and appeals caused delay in allotment of alternative 
F plots to consentees and hence they filed Writ Petition seeking direction 
for allotment of alternative plots. High Court directed the Administration 
to give possession of the alternative plots to the consentees. When despite 
the order of High Court possession was not given, consentees filed another 
Writ Petition for direction for delivery of possessi

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