HIRALAL CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-2-11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on February 13,1990

HIRALAL CHAWLA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The dispute in this group of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution relates to allotment of land for residential purposes by New Okhia Industrial Development Authority (shortly known as 'noida'). NOIDA is a trans-Jamuna housing project set up by the Uttar Pradesh government in the year 1976. Prior to the setting up of the NOIDA, the Defence Services Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and other societies had acquired lands in the area for purposes of housing of their members and when the same came to be notified for acquisition for NOIDA, Writ Petition No. 9034 of 1983 was filed challenging the acquisition; the federation also filed a separate writ petition being No. 1588 of 1984. Some other writ petitions by the different parties were also filed. On 14/01/1985, after hearing parties a bench of this court inter alia made the following directions:
"Both sides presented a fair and nearly accurate picture of the present situation. Spirit of reconciliation rather than confrontation prevailed all throughout. All reasonable suggestions emanating from both sides either accepted or seriously considered by both sides with a view to implementing the scheme under which plots were to be allotted. Only three points remain which necessitated courts intervention. Having examined them we direct:

(1) Noida shall hand over actual possession of plots to each allottee of each society involved in the dispute. To identify them a list setting out their names has to be supplied within six weeks from today.

(2) Mr G. L. Sanghi, learned counsel urged that NOIDA will be entitled to escalation charges for the year 1981 and 1982 which works out at the rate of Rs. 20. 00 per square metre. He repeatedly pointed out that the NOIDA would be entitled to the same under the scheme. May be there was substance in the submission. However, having regard to the fact that a sum of Rs. 5.50 crores has already been deposited by the allottees with the NOIDA for some time and as the scheme had not been implemented 151 as per time schedule provided in the scheme itself, to meet (sic) possession of plot to each allottee had to be handed over somewhere in 1982 and which would be now done in 1985 pursuant to the directions yet without setting a precedent and having regard to the facts of this case and special circumstances pointed out to this court with regard to the present position, we are of the opinion that the NOIDA is not entitled to escalation charges for the year 1981 and 1982.

(3) The third point of a minor difference was that a special charge has to be paid by all allottees whose plots are said to be situated at a comparable advantageous position, such as, corner plots, plots ahutting to the main road or both etc. There may be advantage in taking the corner plot or a plot abutting on the road, but that is fortuitous and not by ones volitional selection. Having regard to the special facts of this case and the element of luck in getting a particular plot we direct that the NOIDA would not be entitled to collect special charge or anything extra for such plots. We order accordingly.

It was further pointed out that there were some applicants who applied for the plots but who failed to keep to the time schedule in the matter of payment. If the number of such applicants had not been very large, the court would have examined each case. But the number of such applicants appears to be quite big.

Mr Soli Sorabjee, learned counsel, in this connection pointed out that under the interim orders of this court dated 3/09/1980, amongst others NOIDA was directed to reserve 269 acres of land in sectors 41 and 42 or in adjoining sectors in addition to the land already allotted to the petitioners. Therefore, their cases deserve consideration as requisite area of land is available.

At the suggestion of the court Mr G. L. Sanghi, learned counsel agrees to appoint Shri Z. H. Kazmi, Law Assistant Registrar (Housing) , Lucknow who would be specifically directed to look into the case of each such applicant and decide whether anyone deserves allotment avoiding technical approach and by approaching the matter from the angle of social justice with broad vision. If there is any dispute which cannot be resolved liberty to move this court. . . "

(2.)On 15/12/1985, the following order was made:
"The parties are agreed that the dispute in regard to payment of interest and the eligibility for allotment of plots may be decided by Shri D. A. Desai, Chairman, Law Commission, as mediator and not as arbitrator. The parties agree that whatever decision is given by Shri D. A. Desai will be accepted by them as binding and there will be no question of challenging it in any form whatsoever. The parties also agree that simultaneous with the execution of documents possession of the plots shall be forthwith handed over to those who are admitted as eligible for allotment and interest shall be paid by them at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of 152 the order made by this court, namely, 2/04/1985, subject to adjustment one way or the other according to the decision which may be given by Shri D. A. Desai. "

(3.)The decision contemplated by the December order took some time to be given and the report furnished to this court came to be hotly debated. More than three years have been taken on that account. It is unnecessary to deal with the different problems which arose in the proceedings before this court after submission of the report till the matter has been heard in the third week of January this year.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.