LexNEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, versus SARVPRIYA SEHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 945 NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. SARVPRIYA SEHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3265 of 2013) APRIL 11, 2013 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A 8 Urban Development - Land purchased by co-operative housing societies - Subsequently declared as industrial C development area under Industrial Area Development Act - High Court held that the societies are entitled to suitable alternative developed land on the basis of recommendations in Khodaiji Committee Report and as per the order dated 22.10.2002 passed by the State under Urban Planning and D Development Act - Held: Recommendations in Khodaiji Committee Report, on facts would not enure to the benefit of the societies - Order dated 12. 10. 2002 is also not applicable to the appellant- Authority - Appeals allowed. E Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973- s.41- Provision under- Incorporated in Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 by virtue of·s.12 thereof - Order passed under s.41 of 1973 Act, whether applicable to the authorities under 1976 Act - Held: Power exercised uls.41 shall not be applicable to the authorities F under 1976 Act merely because s.41 was included in 1976 Act by incorporation - The decision taken by one administrative department, shall not apply to the authorities within administrative control of another department, unless conscious decision is taken to apply the same to both the G categories of authorities. Legislation - Legislation by incorporation - Effect of - Provisions, of earlier Act incorporated in the later Act, 945 H - 946 SUPREME COURT R\=PORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R. A become part and parcel of the later Act - the device of legislation by incorporation is adopted for the sake of convenience. The respondent-Co-operative housing society in 8 appeal No.3265 of 2013 purchased lands from land- holders in the years 1981-1985. The lay-out plan of the society was approved by the then competent authority and as per the agreement between the District Magistrate and the Society, the Society carried out development C activities. During pendency of the development activities, the State Government in exercise of its power u/s. 2(d) of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 declared certain area, including the land belonging to the Society, as industrial development area which would form part of New Okhla Industrial Development Area (NOIDA). They D society was asked by NOIDA to stop the development work. The Society from time to time demanded a suitable altenative developed piece of plot relying on the recommendation of Khaoaiji Committee and also an order of the state Government in the Department of Housing E dated 22.10.2002. On the direction of the High Court NOIDA authorities considered the representation of the Society and rejected the same. Writ petition against the rejection order was allowed holding that the society was entitled to benefit of the recommendations of the Khodaiji F Committee Report and the Government Order dated 22.10.2002. The Court directed NOIDA to give the benefit of Government Order dated 22.10.2002. The respondent Co-operative Housing Society in G Civil Appal No. 3266 of 2013, had purchased the bonds between the years 1990-1996. In this case, High Court had directed the Government to consider its claim observing that the order dated 22.10.2002 would be applicable to NOIDA. H In appeals to this Court, the questions for NEW OKHLA INDUS. DEVT. AUTH. v. SARVPRIYA SEHKARI 94 7 AVAS SAMIT! LTD. consideration were whether the cases of two respondent A societies are covered by Khodaiji Committee's Report and whether NOIDA is bound by the Governm~nt Order dated 22.10.2002. Allowing the appeals, the Court. HELD: 1. It is evident from the relevant recommendation in the report of Khodaiji Committee, that B the Committee made recommendation for allotment of one plot per member to the members of sixteen specified co-operative housing societies and, while doing so,1 it C further observe.d that only those members shall be entitled to get plots who were bonafide members as on 1st of May, 1976. Both the societies in the present appeals do not find place in the recommendation of the Khodaiji Committee and further, it is not their case that D they were even existing on 1st of May, 1976. Thus, the recommendation of Khodaiji Committee shall not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.