Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore Vs. Indore Development Authority  Insc
65 (7 February 2006)
Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia
out of SLP (C) No. 6390/2002) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal upholding the view of the learned
Single Judge that appellant is not entitled to benefits flowing from Resolution
No.9 dated 31.1.1986 of the respondent.
factual background in a nutshell is as follows:
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority') adopted
certain guidelines allowing the Housing Co-operative Societies to utilize the
land owned by them by making plots for construction of houses for the benefit
of their members. The relevant guidelines contained in the Circular dated
31.1.1986 are as follows:
"Only those societies shall be
taken into consideration which have got themselves registered as per the law by
purchasing the land prior to the publication of the Declaration of Section
50(2) of the Authority in respect of the scheme.
Those societies will also be taken
into consideration which have got themselves registered after the publication
of the Declaration of Section 50(2) but the application was moved by them
before the Competent Authority for obtaining rebate under the Urban Land
Ceiling Act prior to the above law.
This will be mandatory for availing
the benefit of these facilities that while entering into an advance agreement
with the Authority, the Society should hand over the vacant and peaceful
possession of the concerned land itself to the Authority. And it will be at
liberty to move for revision etc. for enhancing the compensation. With regard to
the handing over of the possession if there arises any court case or any other
dispute then this facility would not be available. If any tenant or sub tenant
or any other person holds the possession of the land then it will be the
responsibility of the Society that it should make available the vacant
possession to the Authority by removing them from the land. In the event of
being not so, this scheme of allotment of land shall not be implemented."
The appellant was denied the benefit of the Circular on the ground that it did
not fulfill the requisite conditions. Writ Petition (W.P. No.755 of 1994) was
filed by the appellant praying for appropriate directions to the Authority to
grant it the benefit of the Circular dated 31.1.1986. A learned Single Judge dismissed
the Writ Application noticing that the appellant did not fulfill the requisite
conditions. It was noted that the appellant claiming to be one of the
interested societies applied to the Authority on 9.11.1987 and 28.12.1987. The
Authority called upon the appellant to furnish certain details.
order of the Authority dated 1.10.1993 the benefit was declined. It was also
noted by the High Court that the Circular in question dated 31.1.1986 was
withdrawn by resolution No.93 dated 14.5.1993. Though a stand was taken by the
appellant that certain other societies similarly situated were granted the
benefit, the High Court noted that they stood on a different footing. Learned
Single Judge noted that the appellant was not the owner of the land and it only
claimed to be the potential purchaser having purportedly entered into certain
agreements. That being so, it was held that the appellant had not acquired any
legal right to get the benefit in terms of the Circular dated 31.1.1986. A
Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the High Court which by the impugned
order upheld the view of the learned Single Judge. It was specifically noted by
the Division Bench that as the appellant- Society was not the owner of the
land, it was not entitled to the benefit.
support of the appeal, Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel submitted that
the real import of the Resolution is that the society should have got a
tangible interest in the property. Appellant had entered into agreements for
purchase of the land on 18.1.1982 and, therefore clearly fulfilled the
conditions. In fact possession was taken on 5.5.1992. It was also pointed out
that in the case of some others who had similarly situated the benefit had been
extended. According to him, denial of appellant in such circumstances would
amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short
response, learned counsel for the respondent- Authority submitted that both
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have rightly noticed that the
appellant did not fulfill the requisite conditions and, therefore, was not
entitled to any relief.
Clause, as quoted above, requires that only those societies were to be
considered which had got themselves registered as per law by purchasing land
prior to the publication of the Declaration of Section 50(2) of the Madhya
Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short the 'Adhiniyam').
Stand of the learned counsel for the appellant that what was mandatory was the
registration and not the ownership of the land is clearly untenable. The
conditions are cumulative i.e.
the society has to be registered;
it must purchase the land prior to
the publication of Declaration of Section 50(2) of the Authority in respect of
the scheme. The second condition was admittedly not fulfilled. Clause 3 is also
relevant. It provides that it will be mandatory for the society for availing
the benefit of the scheme to hand over a vacant and peaceful possession of the
concerned land to the Authority while entering into an advance agreement with
the Authority. In other words, the advance agreement could be entered into but
at that point of time the vacant and peaceful possession of the concerned land
was to be handed over to the Authority. The appellants could not have done so
because it was neither the owner nor in possession of the concerned land. It is
to be noted that there is scope for advance agreement. It has been in that
context specifically noted in Clause (3) that so far as handing over possession
is concerned if there are court cases or any other dispute then the facility
regarding handing over possession would not be availed. Therefore, the view
expressed by the High Court is clearly in order.
as the allotment to non-eligible societies is concerned even if it is accepted,
though specifically denied by the Authority, to be true that does not confer
any right on the appellants. Two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot
claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should
be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but
would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters, there is no
discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article
14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the
concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold.
It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a
if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other
cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the appellant cannot
strengthen its case. It has to establish strength of its case on some other
basis and not by claiming negative equality. (See Union of India v.
International Trading Co. (2003(5) SCC 437).
at from any angle, the appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct. No