JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus M.C.D. THROUGH COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 588 · Decided: 17-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
M.C.D. THROUGH COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
DECEMBER 17, 1992 
B 
(N.M. KASLIWAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14,19(e), 226-Delhi Electric Supp-
ly Undertaking-Residential quarters built with assistance under Low Income 
Housing Scheme, 1954-Allotted to /ow-income group employees-Right of 
C 01>nership in the quarters-Whether could be claimed by the allottees-Reso/u-
tion passed by Municipal Corporation in respect of its employees-4Vhether 
applicable on the basis of equality. 
. 
Administrative Law: Residential quarters allotted to low paid 
D employees of a local body built under Low Income Housing Scheme, 
1954:-mght of ow,nership-l'romissory estoppel-Whether applicable. : 
The petitioners,· who were empl~yees of Delhi Electricity Supply 
Undertaking(DESU), filed writ petitfons before the High Court claiming. 
that the mmership ·or the residential quarters occupied by them be · 
-E- transferred' in their favour. They contended that the respondents bad 
obtained loan from the .Gove~nment of India, under the Low Income 
Housing Scheme,' 1954 to '.build their own houses, and as such the 
respondents have to transfer the ownership of the said quarters to them. 
The High. Court held that there was no compulsion on the part of the 
F . respondents to sell the houses to the petitioners as the Delhi Administra-
tion by virtue of clause (b) of the letter dated 26.3.1957 while granting 
the· loan had stated that all the quarters constructed under· the low· 
income group housing scheme sh~uld be owned by DESU and not to be 
sold to its employees, and though the Delhi Administration stated that 
it bad no objection to the waiving or the said clause it was not waived. 
G The plea of promissory estoppel was also negatived. by the High Court 
on the ground that there ;as no document on record where any promise 
was held out to the petitioners that the ownership would be transferred 
to them and that 'the allotment of the flats were made to the petitioners 
in their capacity as employees of DESU and admittedly they were paying 
'· H 
rent to the. respondents arid that no purchase pric~ had at any ti.he 
588 
--
JAGDISH PRASAD v. M.C.D. 
589 
been demanded nor paid either in lump sum or in instalments. Aggrieved A 
by the High Court's judgment, the petitioners preferred the present 
Special Leave Petitions. 
In addition to the contentions raised before the High Court, it 
was contended before this Court that an option was given to the 
respondents to sell the houses outright or on hire purchase basis or to 
rent out to their low paid staff and in such a matter, option should 
have been exercised of selling the houses outright or on hire purchase 
basis, which was more in consonance with justice and public interest. 
It was also contended that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has 
passed a resolution to the effect that staff quarters in certain areas 
allotted to its employees be sold on no profit no loss basis and so a 
similar treatment ought to have been given to the petitioners. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, this Court 
B 
c 
HELD: 1. The petitioners were allotted the houses in view of the D 
fact that they were employees of DESU. It is not disputed that the 
petitioners during all these periods were paying rent to the respondents. 
The petitioners have failed to show that any resolution was ever passed 
by DESU for selling of the quarters in question to the petitioners . or 
had passed any resolution for giving such quarters on hire purchase 
basis. The petitioners have no legal right under the scheme of 1954 to 
claim any right of ownership in the quarters. occupied by them. Though 
it may be desirable and a wishful thinking that the welfare state may 
provide house to every citizen and specially the persons belonging to 
low income group and falling in the lower strata of the society, yet this 
is a stupendous task looking to the vast population of this country and 
the limited financial resources and as such no direction can be given 
by the courts in this regard. (592 G, H; 593 A,B] 
E 
F 
2. Resolution No. 868 dated 14.1.1970 was passed by Municipal 
Corporation of Delhi in respect of their own employees and the same G 
cannot be applied to the employees of DESU. There is no question of 
applying the principle of equality in such matters where the employer of 
the petitioners is different and· DESU had not passed any resolution of 

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