1996 (3) TMI 558 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutionality and legality of the action of the respondents in the allotment of school sites.
2. Justification of the allotment process by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).
3. Maintainability of cross-objections filed by one of the private respondents.
4. Compliance with the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, and Haryana Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Regulations, 1978.
5. Fairness and transparency in the allotment process.
6. Validity of the allotments made to private respondents.
7. Consequences of quashing the allotments on students, teachers, and the respondents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality and Legality of the Action of the Respondents in the Allotment of School Sites:

The court emphasized the importance of the rule of law and the necessity for the executive government to act fairly and impartially. It was observed that the State Government, as a regulator and dispenser of benefits, must act in accordance with the law and free from arbitrariness. The court cited precedents from the Supreme Court, including Ramana v. I.A. Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, and The Director of Rationing and Distribution v. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1960 SC 1355, to underline the principle that the State and its instrumentalities are bound by the laws of the land.

2. Justification of the Allotment Process by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA):

The court scrutinized the allotment process adopted by HUDA and found it to be arbitrary and capricious. The learned single Judge had earlier held that the policy of pick and choose was adopted, and those who were favorites were allotted the sites without considering the claims of other applicants. The court found that the whole action was illegal and arbitrary, but the learned single Judge refrained from canceling the allotments made to private respondents.

3. Maintainability of Cross-Objections Filed by One of the Private Respondents:

The court held that cross-objections filed by the respondents are not maintainable under the Letters Patent of the Court. It was noted that the right to file cross-objections is a statutory right under Order 41, Rule 22 of the CPC, which does not extend to proceedings arising out of writ jurisdiction. This view was supported by precedents such as Union of India v. Maj. Lalit Kumar and Excise and Taxation Officer v. Caltex India Ltd.

4. Compliance with the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, and Haryana Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Regulations, 1978:

The court found multiple violations of the Act and the Regulations in the allotment process. These included the failure to determine or notify the area of the school sites, the absence of a tentative premium, non-compliance with the prescribed application procedure, and the lack of a reasonable and proper criterion for allotment. The court noted that the interests of HUDA were not protected, and the process lacked transparency and fairness.

5. Fairness and Transparency in the Allotment Process:

The court emphasized that the allotment process must be free from suspicion and fair. It was observed that the administrative powers should be exercised in a manner that does not appear arbitrary. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, which held that the court is entitled to review administrative decisions to ensure they are fair and based on relevant considerations.

6. Validity of the Allotments Made to Private Respondents:

The court found that the allotments were made under suspicious circumstances without adopting any criterion. The Chief Administrator of HUDA conceded that there was no record showing the reasons for rejecting the applications of the writ petitioners. The court held that the whole action of HUDA was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious, and quashed the allotments made to private respondents.

7. Consequences of Quashing the Allotments on Students, Teachers, and the Respondents:

The court acknowledged the interests of students, teachers, and the amount spent by the respondents. However, it held that the mere fact that some respondents had raised construction or employed teachers was not a ground for permitting the illegalities to continue. The court directed that the school sites be re-notified for allotment or sale, with preference given to open auction. It also provided for the valuation of the construction by a committee of experts and allowed the private respondents to remain in possession until the process was completed.

Conclusion:

The appeals were accepted, and the judgment of the learned single Judge was modified to quash the allotments made to private respondents. The court provided detailed directions for the re-allotment process, ensuring compliance with the Act and the Regulations, and safeguarding the interests of all concerned parties. The appellants were awarded costs of Rs. 2,000 per appeal.