2011 (10) TMI 754 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the amendment to the 1961 Scheme by an administrative order.
2. Interpretation of Rules 4 and 6 of the Nazul Land Rules.

Summary:

1. Validity of the amendment to the 1961 Scheme by an administrative order:
The Supreme Court addressed whether the 1961 Scheme, which was amended by an administrative order dated 03.04.1986, could be validly amended without following the statutory procedure. The High Court had previously held that the 1961 Scheme, being incorporated into the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (Nazul Land Rules), could only be amended through statutory rules under Section 56 read with Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Rule 6 of the Nazul Land Rules did not stipulate the conditions for allotment under the 1961 Scheme. Instead, Rule 6 only provided that if the Authority decided to allot Nazul land to individuals eligible under the 1961 Scheme, it should be at pre-determined rates. Therefore, the 1961 Scheme, being an administrative scheme, could be amended without a statutory rule.

2. Interpretation of Rules 4 and 6 of the Nazul Land Rules:
The Supreme Court examined Rules 4 and 6 of the Nazul Land Rules to determine their relevance to the 1961 Scheme. Rule 4(1) allows the Authority to allot Nazul land to various categories of persons, while Rule 4(2) mandates the disposal of Nazul land by auction to certain institutions. The Court noted that the Full Bench of the High Court in Ramanand v. Union of India and Ors. had held that Rule 4 requires allotment of land in conformity with the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan, and the word "may" in Rule 4(1) indicates discretion vested in the Authority. Rule 6, titled "Allotment of Nazul land at pre-determined rates," specifies that the Authority shall allot Nazul land at pre-determined rates to individuals whose land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi after 01.01.1961. The Supreme Court concluded that Rule 6 controls the rates of premium chargeable only in cases where land is allotted to the specified individuals and does not incorporate the 1961 Scheme.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court. The Court held that the 1961 Scheme could be amended by an administrative order and that Rule 6 of the Nazul Land Rules did not stipulate conditions for allotment under the 1961 Scheme. There was no order as to costs.