9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd may be stated hereunder: Prior to July 16, 1983, for some period of time the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi Administration, (hereinafter referred to as Registrar) was not registering any Group Housing Society under the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, presumably because there was very little chance of such societies being able to get land for construction. As a result of large scale acquisition of land in Delhi either at the instance of the Central Government or the DDA, most of the land in Delhi had been frozen. It appears that under the instructions of the Union of India, the DDA itself had been constructing for residential units on 60% land made available to it and 40% of such land was being allotted by it to different Cooperative Group Housing Societies. One of the norms which was laid down by the DDA for making allotment to Cooperative Housing Societies is 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 Administration to the effect that the administration has decided to re-open the registration of Group Housing Societies. Those Societies which have membership bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the aforesaid three public notices dated March 13, 1984, May 13,1985 and July 2, 1985 that those Societies who intended to get allotment of land from the DDA should submit their final list of membership along with other relevant documents and affidavits to the Registrar and the Registrar after verification would transmit the said documents to the DDA for the purpose of allotment of the land. The Central Government formulated DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as Nazul Rules). It appears that after public notice dated May 13, 1985, 239 more societies submitted their lists and after the last public notice of July 2, 1985, about 400 and odd Societies submitted their lists to the Registrar. It appears that after the lists had been received by the Registrar from various Societies, correspondence was exchanged between the Registrar and some of the Societies with regard to the verification of the lists of members submitted by the concerned Societies. The exercise had been undertaken in order to ensure that the members of the Societies fulfill the criteria to become eligible for allotment of flats. The lists submitted by various Societies were ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land ordered, the allotment will be decided by the order of seniority as determined above. These instructions are issued as clarifications to Rule 6(vi) of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981, and may be brought into force with immediate effect. In view of such guidelines, the criterion for allotment of land to the Cooperative Group Housing Societies was not on the basis of the date of registration of such Societies but on the basis of the date of approval of the final list by the Registrar. The Central Government offered lands to DDA comprising 'Dwarka Project' at Papan Kalan for allotment to various Group Housing Societies. In view of the guidelines contained in the said memorandum dated January 20, 1990, a seniority list of presumable 409 Group Housing Societies had been prepared and allotment of land by drawing of lots was also made in respect of 260 Societies. Such draw of lots had been taken up on January 17, 1991. Prior to such draw of lots, C.W.P. No. 2885 of 1990 by Kaveri Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and a number of Writ Petitions by other Cooperative Group Housing Societies were filed in the Delhi High Court for challenging th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Special Leave petition No. 10857 of 1991, that the criterion of making allotment on the basis of finalisation of the list of members by the Registrar, irrespective of the date of registration of such Societies, is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and contrary to Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules. Referring to Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules it has been held by the High Court that although the expression "first come first served appearing in Rule 6 has not been specifically explained in the said Rule, Rule 21 of Nazul Rules indicates that those Societies which are registered with the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, will be entitled to get allotment of land. Referring to the public notices, mentioned hereinbefore the High Court has indicated that there was no application for allotment of land directly to the DDA by the Cooperative Group Housing Societies. The only communication from the Societies was to the Registrar who was acting as an agent or a conduit to the DDA. The registration of Cooperative Societies was not being allowed because the DDA had no land available for allotment and it was only when the land became available for allotment, the Registrar and not the DDA issued notice inviti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easonable because by the effect of the principle contained in the impugned memorandum the Societies have been left at the mercy of the Registrar but fixation of seniority cannot be left to the whims and fancies of any official and there will be a fixity if reference to date of registration is resorted to. The High Court has indicated that there may be cases, and they probably are, where full particulars may not have been supplied by the Societies. But as and when verification has taken place, it must necessarily relate back to the date when the list of members was filed. The High Court has noted that there are numerous instances to which the attention of the High Court was drawn to show that with no fault of the concerned Societies, they have been relegated to lower positions in the seniority list with reference to the date of approval. As an illustration, the High Court has referred to the case of the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 3219 of 1990, namely, the Thiruvizha Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited. This Society was registered on October 19, 1983. The List of members was received by the Registrar on May 11, 1984. It was sent by the Registrar to the DDA provisionally on May 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of verification of the list of members was never considered to be a relevant criterion for fixing the seniority for the purpose of allotment. The High Court has also noted that such position had also existed even prior to the promulgation of Nazul Rules. According to the High Court the Nazul Rules and Rule 6 in particular merely give statutory recognition to the practice which was being followed by the DDA namely allotment being made with reference to date of registration. The High Court has indicated that in view of long standing practice the office memorandum dated January 20, 1990 laying down a completely different criterion, should have been made public. The High Court has held inter alia that the impugned memorandum dated January 20, 1990 issued by the Central Government is arbitrary and unreasonable and also contrary to Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules and as such the same must be struck down. The list of seniority which was prepared in accordance with the said impugned memorandum was quashed by the High Court and the allotment made or proposed to be made pursuant to such list following the guideline made in the impugned memorandum was also set aside by the High Court. The High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for eligibility of a Society to get allotment, the Group Housing Society must be registered. Such Rule, however, does not indicate in any way that the date of registration will be any determining factor for allotment of land. He has submitted Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules does not explain the term "first come first served". Since the Rule has not given any indication about the meaning of the said expression, the Central Government is quite justified in supplementing the Rule by indicating the criterion in the impugned memo. In that view of the matter, there is no occasion to hold that statutory rule has been sought to be supplanted by an executive direction. He has submitted that the Central Government on consideration of relevant facts, in its wisdom has accepted the principle or guideline for allotment of land to Group Housing Societies and has indicated that with reference to date of approval of the final list by the Registrar in respect of a registered Society, priority in the matter of allotment will be given. Mr. Reddy has contended that if a Society gets itself Registered by filling a list of members but it does not take any further step to get the list of its members approved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce to the date of such application, the date of registration should not be considered as a proper criterion for giving priority in the matter of allotment. Mr. Reddy has also contended that in any event the Writ Petitions should not have been entertained by the Delhi High Court because the Societies which were directed to deposit the money for getting allotment orders and in whose favour lots were drawn and were ultimately given allotments of land were not impleaded as parties. Mr. Reddy has contended that it is an accepted principle consistent with natural justice that if some persons are likely to be affected on account of striking down a policy or decision enuring to their benefit, the Court should not embark upon the consideration of the propriety, correctness and validity of such policy or decision in the absence of such persons. In support of such contention, reference was made to the decision of this Court in the case of Udit Narayan Singh Malpaharia and Ors., etc. v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar [1963] Suppl. 1 SCR p. 676 and Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. etc. . 8. On behalf of the intervenors, the learned Counsels also supported the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the High Court has given very cogent reasons by indicating illustrations as to how grave injustice will be meted out to a number of Societies if the date of registration is not accepted as the criterion for the priority in the matter of allotment of land. Mr. Salve has contended that the authorities have always been following the date of registration as the criterion for allotment and the allotment has all along been made on such basis. Even in the Brochure of DDA sold to public in 1982 such policy was clearly mentioned. He has also contended that when admittedly there was an intention to depart from the policy referred to in the brochure, and Rule 6(vi) required clarification, it was obligatory for the Central Government and/or the DDA to immediately give a public notice drawing the attention of the public that there has been a proposal to change the policy by introducing a new criterion by way of clarification of Rule 6(vi) so that there was an occasion for the parties likely to be affected by the change in the criterion to make proper representation to the concerned authorities thereby enabling the authorities to have a fresh look in the matter. Admittedly such notice was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Group Housing Societies with the Registrar. In this connection, he has referred to the decision of this Court made in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., Cuttack v. The Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar . dealing with interpretation of statute with reference to contemporaneous exposition. The learned Counsels appearing in support of the applications for intervention and impleadment also made their respective submissions. Since such submissions were to the same effect as referred to hereinbefore, we do not propose to indicate such submissions separately. 13. After giving our anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we have no hesitation in upholding the impugned Judgment of the High Court. In our view, the 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. Since we are inclined to endorse the reasonings of the High Court in the impugned Judgment we have referred to such reasonings and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified in holding that after registration, the only thing which was required to be done by the Registrar was to approve the list of members on proper verification and to forward the cases of registered Societies to DDA for allotment by approving the list of members. It is unfortunate that such lists were not approved promptly and thereafter forwarded to DDA. If such lists had been approved without inordinate delay, the question of allotment on the basis of the new criterion as contained in the impugned memo dated January 20, 1990 would not have arisen because admittedly prior to the new guideline, allotment was referable to the seniority in registration. We may also indicate here that there is force in the submission of Mr. S.S. Ray that contemporaneous document namely the Brochure of DDA in 1982 clearly indicates how Rule 6(vi) of Nazul Rules was understood and applied by the respondents. 14. Coming to the question of defect of parties in not impleading the Group Housing Societies which were likely to be affected if the new guideline as contained in the said memorandum of January 20, 1990 is struck down, it may be noted that when the Writ Petitions challenging the legality and va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of seniority in registration was clearly indicated. In the aforesaid facts, the Group Housing Societies were entitled to 'legitimate expectation' of following consistent past practice in the matter of allotment, even though they may not have may legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The existence of 'legitimate expectation' may have a number of different consequences and one of such consequences is that the authority ought not to act to defeat the 'legitimate expectation' without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so. In a case of 'legitimate expectation' if the authority proposes to defeat a person's 'legitimate expectation' it should afford him an opportunity to make representations in the matter. In this connection reference may be made to the discussions on 'legitimate expectation' at page 151 of Volume 1(1) of Halsbury's Laws of England - Fourth Edition (Re-issue). We may also refer to a decision of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Union and Ors. v. Minister for Civil Service reported in [1985] 3 All England Reporter page 935. It has been held in the said decision t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
