1992 (9) TMI 318 - SC - Indian Laws

Legality and validity of the policy decision of Government of India containing the guidelines regarding the procedure for allotment of land by the Delhi Development Authority to different Cooperative Group Housing Societies questioned Held that - High Court has taken a very reasonable view in holding that the expression first come first served appearing in Rule 6(vi) of Nazul Rules relate to the seniority with reference to the date of Registration of Group Housing Societies with the Registrar. The High Court rightly held that there has to be certainty in the seniority with reference to which priority in the matter of allotment is to be given and fixation of such seniority cannot be left to the whims and fancies of any official. It was not at all necessary to find out which of the Societies were likely to get allotments from DDA and to implead them as parties in the Writ petitions. That apart, no real prejudice was caused to the Societies which were likely to be benefitted by the new criterion. Since the allotments in their favour were made with express condition that such allotments would abide by the decision to be rendered in the Writ Petitions and such allotments were liable to be cancelled on account of the decision to be made in the pending Writ Petitions, the Group Housing Societies likely to be affected by the Judgment in the Writ Petitions could take steps for being impleaded in the proceedings and contest the same if they had so desired. It also appears to us that in any event the new policy decision as contained in the impugned memorandum of January 20, 1990 should not have been implemented without making such change in the existing criterion for allotment known to the Group Housing Societies if necessary by way of a public notice so that they might make proper representation to the concerned authorities for consideration of their view-points. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved
1. Legality and validity of the policy decision dated January 20, 1990, regarding the procedure for allotment of land by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to Cooperative Group Housing Societies.
2. Interpretation of Rule 6(vi) and Rule 21 of the Nazul Rules.
3. Procedural fairness and the concept of 'legitimate expectation'.
4. Alleged irregularities in the registration and approval process of Cooperative Group Housing Societies.
5. Non-impleadment of affected parties in the writ petitions.

Detailed Analysis

1. Legality and Validity of the Policy Decision Dated January 20, 1990:

The Supreme Court examined the legality and validity of the Office Memorandum dated January 20, 1990, which changed the criterion for allotment of land from the date of registration of Cooperative Group Housing Societies to the date of approval of the final list by the Registrar. The High Court had quashed this memorandum, finding it arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the previous consistent practice was to allot land based on the date of registration, and the new policy was implemented without proper public notice or opportunity for affected societies to make representations.

2. Interpretation of Rule 6(vi) and Rule 21 of the Nazul Rules:

Rule 6(vi) of the Nazul Rules states that Nazul land shall be allotted to cooperative societies on a "first come, first served" basis. Rule 21 specifies that Nazul land may be allotted to registered cooperative societies. The High Court interpreted "first come, first served" to mean the date of registration of the societies, not the date of approval of the final list by the Registrar. The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the consistent past practice and the DDA's own brochure from 1982 supported this understanding.

3. Procedural Fairness and the Concept of 'Legitimate Expectation':

The Supreme Court highlighted the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation,' which requires public authorities to act fairly and provide an opportunity for affected parties to make representations before changing a long-standing policy. The Court noted that the Cooperative Group Housing Societies had a legitimate expectation that the allotment would be based on the date of registration, as this had been the consistent practice. The new policy was introduced without any public notice or opportunity for the societies to present their views, which was deemed unfair.

4. Alleged Irregularities in the Registration and Approval Process:

The petitioners argued that the registration process was not strictly followed, leading to delays and irregularities. The Supreme Court acknowledged the inefficiencies in the registration process but held that these should not unsettle the established seniority based on the date of registration. The Court noted that any delay in approving the lists by the Registrar should not affect the seniority of societies that had complied with the registration requirements in 1983.

5. Non-impleadment of Affected Parties in the Writ Petitions:

The petitioners contended that the writ petitions should not have been entertained without impleading the societies that had already been allotted land based on the new policy. The Supreme Court found that since the allotments were made during the pendency of the writ petitions and were subject to the outcome of the cases, there was no need to implead these societies. The Court also noted that the societies could have sought to be impleaded if they felt aggrieved by the potential outcome.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, quashing the Office Memorandum dated January 20, 1990, and directing that the allotment of land should be based on the date of registration of the Cooperative Group Housing Societies. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation,' ensuring that changes in policy should be communicated transparently and allow for representations from affected parties. The decision aimed to restore certainty and fairness in the allotment process, adhering to the established practice and legal framework.

← Previous Next →