Dhingra & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors  Insc 97 (6 April 1987)
O. Chinnappa (J) Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) Dutt, M.M. (J) Citation: 1987 Scale
Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976:
and Urban township--Development of--Reser- vation of built houses in favour of
certain categories--Validity of.
of India, Article 14: Industrial and Urban townships--LIG-EWS, MIG houses
Reservation in favour of political sufferers, employees of Central Government,
Public Sector Undertakings and International Organisations--Validi- ty of.
New Okhla Development Area Authority (NOIDA) consti- tuted under the provisions
of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 for the development
of an indus- trial and urban township and for matters connected there- with,
announced two schemes, called LIG-EWS and MIG Schemes, and invited applications
for allotment of houses constructed and proposed to be constructed. Later on,
it decided to reserve a certain percentage of houses in the first scheme for
some categories of persons(1) persons whose land had been acquired for
development, (2) entrepreneurs of the area and their employees, (3) employees
of NOIDA Authority, U.P.
Government undertakings, U.P. State Development Au- thorities and U.P.
Government, (4) employees of Central Government, Government of India Public
Undertakings, Inter- national Organisations, (5) political sufferers, and (6)
nominees of HUDCO. For the MIG Group of houses, reservation was mentioned in
the original advertisement.
disappointed applicants for allotment of LIG/EWS houses filed a writ petition
questioning reservation in favour of entrepreneurs. Another group of six
persons, who had applied for allotment of MIG houses, also filed writ
petitions. After interim orders were made in these two sets of petitions on
March 12, 1982 several hundred more peti- tions in each category were also
filed. All these petitions were heard together on April 30, 1984. As a result
of the various orders made by the Court from time to time, forty petitioners of
the first category and five petitioners of the second category were
accommodated in the two 793 schemes, and all those who took advantage of the
order dated April 30, 1984 were also accommodated.
of the writ petitions, the Court,
Keeping in view the object of the Act under which the NOIDA Authority was
constituted, prima facie, the reser- vation in favour of political sufferers
and employees of Central government, Government of India public undertakings
and international organisations was bad, while reservation in favour of persons
whose land has been acquired, entrepre- neurs of NOIDA and their employees,
employees of NOIDA and nominees of HUDCO was sound and justifiable. [798G-H;
799A] In matters of this nature where apart from the fact that rights of other
parties intervene straightaway when allot- ment is made in their favour, it is
not in public interest that housing schemes should be kept in abeyance or
hanging fire when the need is urgent. [799B-C] If some of the petitioners have
failed to act with that degree of promptitude which is expected in such
matters, they are not entitled to any relief from the Court. However, by virtue
of the orders made by the Court from time to time, some of them have been
benefited by allotment of houses.
benefits as have accrued to them will stand and no further orders are
JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 2293-97 of 1982 etc. etc.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) S. Markandeya, A.V. Rangam, G.
Goswami, K.B. Rohtagi, Tara Chand Sharma. Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, S. Mitter,
Jain, N.S. Das Bahl, A. Subba Rao, M. Qurnaruddin, P.N. Ramalingam, D.K. Garg,
A.K. Goel, H.K. Puri, R. Venkatarama- ni, A.S. Pundir, Mukul Mudgal,
R.N.Keswani, Mrs. Rani Chha- bra, S.K. Gupta, H.S. Parihar, S.K. Bisaria, K.C.
Dua, N.N. Sharma, Prem Malhotra, Dalveer Bhandari, B.R. Aggarwal, S.C.
S.K. Verma, Mrs. M. Karanjawala, K.B. Rohtagi, R.P.
A.N. Bardiyar, V.K. Verma, R.P. Gupta, Shakeel Ahmed, and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for
Dev Singh, Ashok Grover, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs.
Shobha Dikshit, Raju Ramachandran, P.K. Ghosh, K.L. Goyal, H.S. Parihar and
P.P. Singh for the Respondent.
Parekh, K.K. Gupta and Amlan Ghosh for the Interveners.
Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The Uttar Pradesh
Legislature enact- ed the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976
for the constitution of an authority for the development of certain areas in
the State into industrial and urban town- ships and for matters connected
therewith. The New Okhla Development Area Authority (NOIDA) was constituted
under the provisions of this Act. NOIDA acquired vast extends of land in the
autskirts of Delhi for the purpose of developing an industrial and urban
township. NOIDA announced two schemes called LIG-EWS and MIG Schemes and
invited applications for allotment of houses constructed and proposed to be
con- structed by them. Several thousand applications were re- ceived and NOIDA
announced closure of the schemes on Decem- ber 11, 1980. Though in the original
advertisement relating to the LIG-EWS scheme, there was no reservation of
allotment in favour of any class of persons, it appears that later on NOIDA
decided to reserve a certain percentage of houses for some categories of
persons in the following manner:- "(1) Persons whose land has been
acquired by NOIDA for the development of NOlDA ... 2% (2) Enterpreneurs of
NOIDA, and their employees ... 17% (3) Employees of NOIDA, UP State Government
under- taking, UP State Development Authorities and UP Government ... 15% (4)
Employees of Central Government, Government of India, Public Undertakings,
International Organisations ... 5% (5) Political Sufferers ... 5% (6) Nominees
of HUDCO ... 20%" 795 So far as the MIG houses are concerned, the
reservation was mentioned even in the original advertisement inviting appli-
cations for allotment of houses.
disappointed applicants for allotment of LIG-EWS houses filed writ petition No.
220 of 1981 primarily ques- tioning the reservation in favour of enterpreneurs
and seeking a direction that the claims of the petitioners for allotment should
be considered in any future scheme. A Rule Nisi was issued by the court on
April 4, 1981 and on May 8, 1981, an interim order was also made restraining
NOIDA from making any fresh allotment of houses without obtaining the previous
order of the court. Another group of six persons who had applied for allotment
of MIG houses filed Writ Petition Nos. 2292-97 of 1982 and a similar interim
order was made in these petitions also on March 1982. On the same day, that is,
March 12, 1982 the application for interim directions in Writ Petition No. 220
of 1981 came up before another bench and an order was made therein permitting
NOIDA to assign numbers to houses which had already been allotted but directing
NOIDA to reserve 40 houses, so that the peti- tioners could be accommodated if
they succeeded in the writ petition. What is important to be noted here is that
by March 1982, only 40 persons had approached this court in the matter of
allotment of houses under the LIG-EWS Scheme and six persons in the matter of
allotment of houses under the MIG Scheme. Thereafter there appear to have been
several hundred petitions of each category. On April 30, 1984 all the petitions
were heard together and an order was made by this court consisting of D.A.
Desai and R.B. Misra, JJ. in the following terms:- "Mr. A.M. Srivastava,
the Court Master is appointed as Court officer to do the following things:
our order dated March 12, 1982 this court directed that respondents will not
allot 40 houses till the disposal of the writ petition. Mr. O.P. Rana, learned
counsel states that this order was understood by the respondents to mean that
40 houses shall be kept vacant both in EWS Group and LIG Group.
40 houses are available for allotment in each of the aforementioned groups.
direct that the petitions in each EWS and LIG group who are desirous of having
allotment of 'one of the houses reserved for the group shall immediately give
their names with registration numbers latest by May 31, 1984 to 796 Mr. A.M.
Srivastava, the Court Officer ap- pointed by the Court. He shall keep a
register in which he will register the name of each such intending original
applicant with the registration number. Each such applicant shall also state
that he will abide by the order of this Court with respect to interest and
inci- dental management charges that the Court may determine in case of EWS and
respect of these 40 houses in each group the price will be the old price at
which the house in each group was advertised." "The respondent shall
submit a statement within four weeks from today speci- fying the split up of
the amount worked out as price of each house in EWS group ranging from 27,000
to Rs.35,000 specifically referring to the component of price of the land
included in the computation." "The respondents shall submit a
statement specifying how cost of construction per sq. metre in respect of EWS
and MIG is determined. If houses in any group is subsi- dised without
disclosing the names and nature of the subsidies, the same shall be disclosed.
the original applicants for the EWS and LIG group will be entitled for
allotment but no one is entitled to cross the group in which registration was
obtained." "Mr. O.P. Rana, learned counsel for the respondents states
that respondents have 347 houses of Type III which could be provided to
applicants in MIG group and 621 quarters in type II which could be allotted to
applicants in LIG group. It appears that LIG and MIG have acquired new
designation as type III and Type II group. It is, therefore, desirable to
permit applicants registered in MIG to be grouped together with type III group
and LIG with type II group." "Fair play and justice demands subject
to just exception applicants regis- tered in MIG and LIG groups must be allowed
to participate in draw of lot for houses in Type III and Type II houses with
this reservation that each of the applicants in either LIG or MIG shall
undertake to pay prize as now fixed namely Rs.1,52,000 for MIG house each and
Rs.59,000 for LIG house (type III and type II respec- 797 tively). It is hereby
clarified that those who had registered in MIG group earlier shall be entitled
to participate for the allotment of type III quarters and those who had applied
for LIG group shall be entitled to participate for allotment of type II
quarters. Each one of the applicant who desires to participate shall follow the
same prescribed procedure as herein indicated giving the necessary undertaking
that he will abide by the direction of the Court. The applicants will give
their names and registration number latest by May 3 l, 1984. Six weeks
thereafter the respondents shall proceed to draw the lot for allotment if there
are more applications than the available number of quarters in the presence of
the Court Officer who shall hold and supervise the draw with the assistance of
the NOIDA AUTHORI- TIES and each one who succeed in the draw of lot shall be
put in actual possession within four weeks thereafter." "The Nodia
authorities will give wide publicity to this order." "Learned counsel
on either side will exchange the responses to various proposals rooted out
within two or three days from today and the matters will be listed after summer
vacation." On July 17, 1984, the earlier order was clarified in the
following manner:- "(1) Pursuant to the order dated March 12, 1982 the
NOIDA authorities were directed not to allot 40 houses to anyone so that the
petitioners if they succeed in the Writ Peti- tion, will not be denied houses
for want of sufficient number of houses. Therefore 40 houses were reserved in
W.P. No. 228 of 1981.
lot to be drawn in this case is amongst the 40 petitioners with regard to which
houses should be given not anyone else but to those who are entitled to
participate in the lots for these 40 houses.
When we refer to the petitioners appli- cants in our order dated April 30,
1984. It is clarified, that all these persons who have moved either by way of
appellants or Writ Petitioners and who had deposited the amount and those who
had re-deposited the amount under the orders of 798 this Court and accepted by
the NOIDA authori- ties in consonance with the order of this court, all of them
shall form one class for participating in the lot. Mr. A.M. Srivastava, Court
Master should carry put the directions as herein directed to supervise the draw
of the lot by the NOIDA authorities and complete the draw within one month from
are satisfied that the persons who have made the applications within the time
bound programme shall be entitled to partici- pate in the proceedings in the
draw of the lot." It will be noticed that though there was an order in
favour of the 40 petitioners in Writ Petition No. 228 of 1981 that forty
LIG-EWS houses may be released to them, there was no similar order in favour of
the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2292-97 of 1982 to release MIG houses in
their favour, notwithstanding that they stood on the same footing. This
question was considered on March 25, 1985 and an order was made directing the
release of five MIG houses to I.L. Dhin- gra, H.K. Bhatia. C.S. Tomar, Jagan
Nath and Gian Chand (petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2293-97 of 1982). The
stay granted by the court earlier which prevented delivery of the possession of
houses to persons to whom houses were originally allotted was vacated. It will
thus be seen that as a result of the various orders made by the court from time
to time, the forty petitioners in Writ Petition No. 228 of 1981 and five
petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2293-97 of 1982 were accommodated in the two
schemes and all those who took advantage of the order of the court dated April
30, 1984 were also accommodated. We do not think that it is either possible or
permissible for this court to give any further direction in these matters. The
orders made at several stages of these petitions should really conclude the
Markandeya, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that the reservation
made by NOIDA in favour of some of the categories of persons above-mentioned
was bad. Keep- ing in view the object of the Act under which NOIDA was
constituted, prima facie, the reservation in favour of political sufferers and
employees of Central Government, Government of India Public Undertakings and
International Organisations appears to us to be bad, while reservation in
favour of persons whose land was been acquired, entrepre- neurs and NOIDA
employees and employees of NOIDA appears to be sound. Reservation in favour of
persons belonging to scheduled castes, Scheduled tribes and back- 799 ward
classes was not questioned before us. Reservation in favour of nominees of
HUDCO was questioned but it appears to us to be prima facie justifiable as
HUDCO is the principal financier of the schemes. However,. in the circumstances
of these cases, we do not propose to probe further into the question of the
validity of the reservations as we think that the petitioners in the writ
petitions other than Writ Petition Nos. 228 of 1981 and 2293-97 of 1982 are not
enti- tled to any relief as they cannot be said to have acted with that degree
of promptitude which is expected in matters of this nature where apart from the
fact that rights of other parties intervene straightaway when allotment is made
in their favour, it is not in the public interest that housing schemes etc.
such as the present schemes should be kept in abeyance or hanging fire when the
need is urgent. However by virtue of the orders made by the court from time to
time, some of them have been benefited by allotment of houses which were
available and such benefits as have accrued to them will stand. The petitioners
in Writ Petition No. 228 of 1981 and Writ Petition Nos. 2293-97 of 1982 have
been allot- ted houses pursuant to the interim orders of this court and no
further orders are necessary in their case. All the writ petitions are,
therefore, dismissed but subject to the allotments made from time to time
pursuant to the orders of this Court.
S Petitions dismissed.