http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: I.L. DHINGRA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/04/1987

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1987 SCALE  (1)696

ACT:     Uttar  Pradesh  Industrial Area Development  Act,  1976: NOIDA-Industrial and Urban township--Development  of--Reser- vation    of   built   houses   in   favour    of    certain categories--Validity of.     Constitution 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.

HEADNOTE:     The 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. State  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.     Forty  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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court,     HELD: 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. Such  benefits  as have accrued to them will  stand  and  no further orders are necessary. [799C-D]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 2293-97 of 1982 etc. etc. (Under 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,  Ms. Abha 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. Pate|,  S.K. Verma, Mrs. M. Karanjawala, K.B. Rohtagi,  R.P. Singh, A.N. Bardiyar, V.K. Verma, R.P. Gupta, Shakeel Ahmed, and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Petitioners. Anil Dev Singh, Ashok Grover, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. 794 Shobha  Dikshit, Raju Ramachandran, P.K. Ghosh, K.L.  Goyal, H.S. Parihar and P.P. Singh for the Respondent. P.H. Parekh, K.K. Gupta and Amlan Ghosh for the Interveners. The 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%

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

     (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.     Forty  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:                        By  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.               These 40 houses are available for allotment in               each of the aforementioned groups.                        We 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             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 LIG  allotments.               In  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.               Only  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

             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.               The  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.               (2)  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 today.                         We  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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

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 matter.     Shri  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. P.S.   S                                           Petitions dismissed. 800