LexNAVJYOTI CO-OP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NA VJYOTI CO-OP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY ETC. A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 [S. MOHAN AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] B Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Nazul Lands) Rules, 1981: Rules 6(vi), 21-Govemment of India Memo dated 20.1.90 containing policy decision-Allotment of land to Cooperative Housing Societies-Proce- C dure to be fo//owed-'First come first served'-Meaning of-Seniority for purposes of allotment-Whether from date of registration or final approval of list of Members-Doctrine of 'Legitimate Expectation-Applicability of Administrative Law: Doctrine of Legitimate Expectati()n-lJeviation from policy/practice-Affording of opportunity-Need for. . D consistent part For sometime, the Registrar, CooperatWe Societies was not register- ing any Group Housing Society under the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 presumably because there was very little chance of their E getting land for construction. In the meantime there was large scale acquisition of land in Delhi and most of the land bad been frozen. Of the land made available to DDA, it was constructing residential units on 60% of the land and the balance 40% land was to be allotted to different Group Housing Societies. One of the norms laid down for such allotment was that the Society should not have less than 60 and more than 300 members. On July 16, 1983, a public notice was issued by the Delhi Administra- F tion to the effect that it had decided to re-open the registration of Group Housing Societies. The last date for receipt ofapplication was 17th August, 1983 which was further extended to 10th August, 1983. Out of 2600 G Societies which applied for registration 1406 Societies were registered. On March 13, 1984, the Registrar issued a Public Notice to the effect that those societies registered in 1983-84 and desirous of seeking land through DDA, may apply to the Registrar. Subsequently, time was ex- tended up to July 31, 1985. Most of the societies furnished their list of H 709 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A members for verification. The Registrar approved such lists at various points of time. The time taken for verification and approval of the lists varied from 1 day to 5-1/2 years from the date of filing of the lists. B On January 20, 1990, the Government of India issued an Office Memorandum containing guidelines regarding procedure for allotment of land, according to which the criterion for allotment of land was not on the basis of the date of registration of the Society, but on the basis of the date of approval of the final list by the Registrar. On this basis a seniority list of 409 societies was prepared and allotment of land by draw of lots was made in respect of 260 societies. Prior to the draw of lots some societies C filed Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging the validity of the abovesaid Memorandum dated January 20, 1990. D While DOA made allotment of land to 260 societies it specifically mentioned in the allotment order that the proposed allotment was subject to the decision on the Writ Petitions. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the Memoran- dum dated January 20, 1990 and set aside the allotments/proposed allot- ments. It also indicated that the term 'first come first served' appearing in Rule 6(vi) of the ODA (Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 meant that E those Societies who first come for allotment will get preference over the Societies who applied at a subsequent point of time. F G Being aggrieved by the fligh Court's judgment, the Petitioner Societies preferred the present Special Leave Petition and Writ Petitions. Intervention Petitions have 11lso been filed. On behalf of the petitioners and intervenors, it was contended that priority on the basis of earlier registration number of the Group Housing Societies cannot be accepted as reasonable; that the petitioner Societies would not get allotment in the near future and they may have to wait indefinitely for a longer time and by such process they were bound to suffer a serious prejudice not only on account of escalation of cost of construe· lion with the lapse of time but also on account of getting refund of hard earned money paid by such Societies without any interest whatsoever; that the expression 'first come first served' in Rule 6(vi) of the DDA (Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules, has not been indicated and explained and it was H therefore op
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.