- (1.) In SLPs except SLP Nos. 12720-23/96. We have heard the counsel on both sides. These Special Leave Petitions have been filed against the order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No. 1368/92 and batch, dated March 1, 1996. The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) had invited applications for allotment of sites to establish the high schools, primary schools or nursery schools in the zone earmarked for the schools in Panchkula. Pursuant thereto, several institutions/persons including the petitioners had applied for allotment of sites. HUDA had allotted, out of 23 plots available, sites to 11 persons and denied allotment to eight persons. The non-allotees filed the writ petitions in the High Court challenging the validity of the procedure adopted by the HUDA in allotting sites to the schools. Though the learned single Judge found fault with the allotment, on finding and taking into consideration that pending writ petitions, the petitioners and some of the respondents had constructed buildings and schools were being run at the allotted plots, he upheld their actions and dismissed the writ petitions with the observations mentioned therein. On appeal, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned single Judge and while quashing the allotments made, issued directions as enumerated thus: "a) All the school sites required to be allotted or sold shall be notified afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. All the petitioners, the private respondents and all other eligible persons shall be permitted to participate in the process of sale or allotment; b) preference shall be given for sale or allotment by open auction; c) In case, the respondent authority decides not to resort to the method of open auction, it may invite applications in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 5 and on the prescribed pro forma; d) The tentative price/premium of each site shall be pre-determined and proportionate earnest money received along with the applications, if filed; e) appropriate reasonable uniform criterion for making the allotments, if so desired, be notified in advance; f) Before initiating action for sale or allotment of the school sites, value of the construction/building raised by the private respondents herein shall be got determined by the Committee of experts headed by a Chief Engineer; g) The intending allottees would be intimated that if they succeed in getting the school sites allotted in their favour, they will take its possession along with the building, staff and the students who offer to remain in their employment/institutions; h) In case it is decided to transfer the land by open auction it shall specifically be mentioned in the notice that in case the present allottee succeeds in such auction, they shall be given the benefit of 10 percent of the bid amount offered by them; i) Out of the amount realised by sale or lease on account of the price-premium, the erstwhile allottees shall be paid the amount spent by him/it in raising construction of the building at his own risk and responsibility during the pendency of the writ petition, as calculated by Expert Committee along with the amount already paid to the HUDA such a provision would not be applicable where the allottee exercises his option to remove the construction raised by him/it at his/its own risk and responsibility. j) The process be initiated within two months and completed within four months; k) Till the process of fresh allotment is completed, the private respondents shall be permitted to remain in possession of the school sites allotted to them. The appellants are held entitled to the payment of costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per appeal."
(2.) Shri P. P. Rao Shri Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for the HUDA contended that the HUDA had laid the criteria for allotment of the sites; invited applications, prescribed the pre-conditions for compliance laid down therein; a Committee was constituted to go into the credentials of the applicants; and after close scrutiny of those applications the HUDA had allotted these sites to the petitioners in total to 11 applicants. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the HUDA cannot be found fault with. Shri Rao and Gopal Subramaniam further contended that allotment by auction is not the only criteria provided in Section 15 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short, the "Act"). The Haryana Urban development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978 (for short, the Regulations) do indicate the provision for allotment by modes other than public auction. Proviso to regulation 5(3) itself gives power for allotment to groups or individuals or persons practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business or for any such categories of persons or government department or institution or charitable institutions or other organisations for public welfare as may be decided by the authority from time to time. Therefore, the Division Bench was not right in its conclusion that allotment by public auction is the only mode of allotment.
(3.) It is also further contended that pending writ petitions the petitioners have constructed the buildings at a huge cost. Compliance of the directions of the Division Bench would put them to great disadvantage and that, therefore, the relief should be suitably moulded. Having given consideration to the respective contentions, we think that the directions issued by the Division Bench broadly cannot be found fault with. It is seen that Section 15 of the Act gives power to the authority for disposal of the land as under: "15. Disposal of land:- (1) Subject to any directions given by the State Government under this Act and to the provisions of sub-section (5), the Authority may dispose of - (a) any land acquired by it or transferred to it by the State Government without undertaking or carrying our any development thereon; or (b) any such land after undertaking or carrying out such development as it thinks fit, to such persons, in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions, as it considers expedient for securing development. (2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as enabling the Authority to dispose of land by way of gift but subject to this condition, reference in this Act to the disposal of land shall be construed as reference to the disposal thereof in any manner, whether by way of sale, exchange or lease or by the creation of any easement, right or privilege or otherwise. (3) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, the Authority may, sell lease or otherwise transfer whether by auction, allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to it on such terms and conditions as it may, by regulations provide. (4) The consideration money for any transfer under sub-section (1) shall be paid to the Authority in such manner as may be provided by regulation. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, for the time being in force, any land or building or both, as the case may be, shall continue to belong to the Authority until the entire consideration money together with interest and other amount, if any, due to the authority, on account of the sale of such land or building or both is paid. (6) Until the conditions provided in the regulations are fulfilled, the transferee shall not transfer his rights in the land or building except with the previous permission of the Authority, which may be granted on such terms and conditions as the Authority may deem fit.";