I.L. DHINGRA & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 792 · Decided: 06-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
I.L. DHINGRA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
APRIL 6, 1987 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976: NOIDA-
Industrial and Urban township-Development of-Reservation of built 
houses in favour of certain categories-Validity of. 
C 
Constitution of India, Article 14: Industrial and Urban town-
~. -
D 
ships-LIG-EWS, MIG houses-Reservation in favour of political 
sufferers, employees of Central Government, Public Sector Under-
takings and International Organisations-Validity of. 
The New Okbla Development Area Authority (NOIDA) consti· 
toted nnder the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area 
Development Act, 1976 for the development of an industrial and urban 
township and for matters connected therewith, announced two 
schemes, called LIG·EWS and MIG Schemes, and invited applications 
for allotment of houses constructed and proposed to be constructed. 
E 
Later on, it decided to reserve a certain percentage of houses in the first 
scheme for some categories of persons-(!) persons whose land had 
been acquired for development, (2) entrepreneurs of the area and their 
employees, (3) employees of NOIDA Authority, U.P. State Government 
undertakings, U.P. State Development Authorities and U.P. Govern· 
ment, (4) employees of Central Government, Government of India 
F 
Public Undertakings, International Organisations, (5) political suffer· 
ers, and (6) nominees ofHUDCO. For the MIG Group of houses, reser· ' 
vation was mentioned in the original advertisement. 
Forty disappointed applicants for allotment of LIG/EWS houses 
filed a writ petition questioning reservation in favour of entrepreneurs. 
G 
Another group of six persons, who had applied for allotment of MIG 
houses, also filed writ petitions. After interim orders were made in these 
two sets of petitions on March 12, 1982 several hundred more petitions 
in each category were also filed. All these petitions were heard together 
on April 30, 1984. As a result of the various orders made by the Court 
from time to time, forty petitioners of the first category and five 
H petitioners of the second category were accommodated in the two 
792 
-+ 
-
1.L. DHINGRA v. U.P. STATE 
793 
schemes, and all those who took advantage of the order dated April 30, A 
1984 were also accommodated. 
Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court, 
HELD: Keeping in view the object of the Act under which the 
NOIDA Authority was constituted, prima fade, the reservation in 
B 
favour of political sufferers and employees of Central government, 
Government of India public undertakings and international organisa-
tions was bad, while reservation in favour of persons whose land has 
been acquired, entrepreneurs of NOIDA and their employees, 
employees of NOIDA and nominees of HUDCO was sound and justi-
fiable. [798G-H; 799A) 
In matters of this nature where apart from the fact that rights of 
other parties intervene straightaway when allotment is made in their 
favour, it is not in public interest that housing schemes should be kept 
in abeyance or hanging fire when the need is urgent. (7998-C) 
If some of the petitioners have failed to act with that degree of 
promptitude which is expected in such matters, they are not entitled to 
any relief from the Court. However, by virtue of the orders made by the 
Court from time to time, some of them have been benefited by allotment 
of houses. Such benefits as have accrued to them will stand and no 
c 
0 
further orders are necessary. [799C-D) 
E 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 2293-97 of 
1982 etc. etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
S. Markandeya, A.V. Rangam, G. Goswami, K.B. Rohtagi. 
Tara Chand Sharma. Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, S. Mitter, Ms. Abha 
Jain, 1\1.S. Das Bahl, A. Subba Rao, M. Qumaruddin, P.N. Rama-
lingam, D.K. Garg, A.K. Goel, H.K. Puri, R. Venkataramani, A.S. 
Pundir, Mukul Mudgal, R.N. Keswani, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, S.K. 
Gupta, H.S. Parihar, S.K. Bisaria, K.C. Dua, N.N. Sharma, Prem 
Malhotra, Dalveer Bhandari, B.R. Aggarwal, S.C. Patel, S.K. 
Verma, Mrs. M. Karanjawala, K.B. Rohtagi, R.P. Singh, A.N. 
Bardiyar, V.K. Verma, R.P. Gupta, Shakeel Ahmed, and Mrs. 
Urmila Sirur for the Petitioners. 
Anil Dev Singh, Ashok Grover, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. 
F 
G 
H 
794 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Shobha Dikshit, Raju Ramachandran, P.K. Ghosh, K.L. Goyal, H.S. 
Parihar and P.P. Singh for the Respondent. 
'r 
P.H. Parekh, K.K. Gupta and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.