http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: H.U.D.A. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ANIL SABHARWAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/12/1997

BENCH: B.N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: [ With I.A.Nos.4 & 5/97 in C.A.No. 8637/97 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11238/97 ]                       J U D G M E N T Verma, CJI      Leave granted  limited to the question indicated in our order dated 7.7.9      The grievance of the appellants is that our order dated 7.5.97 in  Sanjay Jain  Vs. Anil  Sabharwal & Ors. [ (SLP(C) .../97 ( CC.4325/97 ] has been misconstrued to mean that the legality of  allotment of plots made under the discretionary quota even prior to 31.10.89 has been directed by that order to be  reopened and  examined. It  is submitted  that such a misinterpretation results  from a misconstruction of certain words in that order, namely:      "We are constrained to observe that      the    accountability     of    the      authorities who are responsible for      making these  arbitrary  allotments      which have  been rightly  cancelled      by  the  High  Court  needs  to  be      examined after  their  identity  is      fixed in an appropriate proceeding.      In addition,  it is  also expedient      that any  remaining  allotments  of      the kind  which have been cancelled      by the  High Court  should also  be      treated also be treated alike. This      exercise has  not bee  performed by      the High  Court in the preset case.      It is, therefore, expedient that as      a follow  up action, the High Court      should  proceed   to  complete  the      exercise."      It is  sufficient for  us to  clarify that by the above order dated  7.5.97 this  Court upheld  cancellation of  the allotments  out   of  the  discretionary  quota  made  after 31.10.89  and   it  was  further  said  that  any  remaining allotments of  the same  kind should  be  treated  alike  to complete the  exercise. In  other  words,  our  order  dated 7.5.97 contained  the direction  to treat all allotments out

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

of the  discretionary quota  made after 31.10.89 without any exception, in  order to  examine the  accountability of  the concerned authorities  as also  to avoid  any discrimination between allotters  subsequent to  31.10.89. That  order was, therefore, concerned  entirely with the allotment made after 31.10.89   and did  not refer to any allotment prior to that date. We  consider it  necessary to  say  so  to  avoid  any possible  misinterpretation  by  this  Court’s  order  dated 7.5.97.      We  may,  however,  add  that  the  only  question  for examination  by   this  Court   in  Sanjay   Jain  vs.  Anil Sabharwal’s case being all the allotments made subsequent to 31.10.89,  our   order  is  also  not  to  be  construed  as inhibiting any  separate/independent action  in  respect  of allotments for  any other  period including  period prior to 31.10.89. The appeal is disposed of with this clarification.