KASTHA NIWARAK G.S.S. MARYADIT, INDORE versus PRESIDENT, INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 129 · Decided: 07-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
KASTHA NIWARAK G.S.S. tviARYADIT, INDORE 
A 
v. 
PRESIDENT, INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
FEBRUARY 7, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Land Laws and Urban Development: 
Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, I973; Section 
~m: 
c 
Land owned by Housing Co-operative Societies-Issuance of Circular! 
guidelines allowing them to utilize the land by constructing homes for members 
subject lo certain conditions-Denial of benefit to a society-Justification of-
Held: Transfer of vacant arid peaceful possession of the land by a Housing D 
Society to the authority is a condition mandatory for availing the benefit of 
the Scheme/Circular~ince the society in question was neither in possession 
of the land nor the owner, it could' not have handed over the vacant and 
peaceful possession of the land to the society-Hence, benefit of the scheme 
rightly denied. 
" · 
·constitution of India, I950; Article I4: 
E, 
Benefit of Circular/Scheme allegedly allowed lo in{!ligib/e societies but 
denial to appellant-society-Discrimination-Held: Concept of equal treatment 
presupposes existence of similar legal foothold-Repetition of a wrong action F 
cannot be countenanced-Hence, the concept of equal treatment on the logic 
of Article I 4 cannot be pressed into service in such cases. 
. 
Respondent-Indore Development Authority adopted certain 
guidelines issued in terms of a Circular dated 31.1.1986, allowing the 
Housing Co-operative Societies to utilize the land owned by them by G 
constructing houses for the benefit of their members. The appellant, a 
society, was denied the benefit of the Circular on the ground that it did 
not fulfill the requisite conditions. Writ petition filed by the appellant was 
dismissed by !he Single Judge of the High Court holding that the appellant 
129 
H 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
120061 2 S.C.R. 
A had not acquired any legal right to get the benefit in terms of the Circular, 
the judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in 
the Letters Patent Appeal holding that since the appellant-Society was not 
the owner of the land, it was not entitled to the benefit of the Circular. 
Hence the present appeal. 
B 
The appellant contended that the real import of the Circular is that 
the society should have got a tangible interest in the property which they 
possess in terms of the agreements for purchase of the land, tflus they 
fulfilled the requisite conditions for getting the benefit of the Circular; and 
that since the benefit had been extended to other societies, denial of benefit 
C to the appellant in such circumstances would amount to violation of Article 
14 of the Constitution of India. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD. I.I. In terms of the First Clause of the Circular dated 
.J) 31.1.1986 issued by the Indore Development Authority only those societies 
. were to be considered for the benefit of the Scheme which had got 
themselves registered as per law by purchasing land prior to the 
publication of the Declaration of Section 50(2) of the Madhya Pradesh 
Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. Stand of the appellant that 
what was mandatory was the registration and not the ownership of the 
E land is dearly untenable. The second condition as laid down in the Circular 
by the appellant was admittedly not fulfilled. Clause 3 of the Circular is 
also relevant as it provides that it will be mandatory for the society for 
availing the benefit of the scheme to hand over a vacant and peaceful 
possession of the concerned land to the Authority while entering into an 
F advance agreement with the Authority. However, the appellants could not 
have done so because it was neither the owner nor in possession of the 
concerned land. It has been in that context specifically noted in Clause 
(3) that so far as handing over possession is concerned if there are court 
cases or any other dispute then the facility regarding handing over 
G possession would not be availed. Therefore, the view expressed by the High 
Court is clearly in order. (133-C-FI 
1.2. So far as the allotment to non-eligible societies is concerned even 
if it is accepted, though specifically denied by the Authority, to be true 
that does not confer any right on the appellants. The concept of equal 
H treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed 
• 
I 
~ 
KASTHA NIWA RAK G.S.S. MARYADIT o·. PRESIDENT. INOORE DEV. AUTHORITY (PASAYAT J.] 
131 
Y 
into service in such case

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