Holding

Non‑impleadment of the allottees violates natural justice; therefore the matter must be remanded for a fresh decision after hearing them.

Summary

The Allwyn Housing Colony Welfare Association filed a writ petition challenging the allotment of 3 acres 18 guntas of land to the Hyderabad Allwyn Employees Co‑operative Housing Committee. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the persons to whom the plots were allotted were not impleaded. The Supreme Court allowed the impleadment applications, held that natural justice requires hearing of allottees, and therefore set aside the High Court's order. It remanded the matter to the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court for a fresh decision after hearing the impleaded parties and condoned the delay in filing the petition. An interim order maintaining the status quo was also upheld. The appeal was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the non‑impleadment of persons who have been allotted plots violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether a writ petition can be entertained despite a two‑year delay in filing.
Whether the Supreme Court can condone the delay and remand the case for fresh hearing.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

natural justiceimpleadmentwrit petitionArticle 226delay condonationland allotmentcooperative housingstatus quo

Judgment

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 302 'I

~

A ALLWYN HOUSING.... COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION
~ '~ ~
i »·
v.
GOVT. OF A. P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6136 of 2009)
.. SEPTEMBER 8, 2009
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND ASOK KUMAR r '

GANGULY, JJ.] ·1
i. .. '

j_
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: )
c '-
Article 226 - Writ petition challenging allotment of plots ,.
by Cooperative Housing Committee to its members -

D
allottees not impleaded in the writ petition - Application for
impleadment filed by allottees before Supreme Court allowed
- Held: Natural justice required that the person in whose .y-
r
..... ~
-'
favour plots were allotted and to whom possession was J
)

handed over should have been impleaded in' the writ petition
and they should have been heard by the Supreme Court - I

Matter remanded to Division Bench of High Court for decision
j.,_
afresh in accordance with law after hearing the persons in
E
whose favour plots have been allotted including the
impleaded persons - Delay in filing the writ petition condoned
- Though application for impleadment allowed, yet, if any t-
affected party is still there and wants to implead himself in the
matter, he may ljle application for imp/eadment before the
F High Court - Interim order maintaining the status quo to
continue till the decision in the matter by the High Court -
Natural justice.

Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs. Regional
G Director, ES/ & Others 2009(11) SCALE 766, relied on
j -...,_
Case Law R~ference:
2009(11) SCALE 766 relied on para 6
.
H 302
ALLWYN HOUSING COLONY WELFARE 303
ASSOCIATION v. GOVT. OF AP. & ORS.
- t CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. A \

6136 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.9.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
Appeal No. 740 of 2007. B
L.N. Rao, V. Sridhar Reddy, 8. Venkatadrf. (for V.N.
~ :A Raghupathy) for the Appellants.

M.N. Rao, I. Venkatanarayana, Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha
S. Desai, L.D. Joshi, Manoj Saxena (for T.V. George), A.D.N. c
Rao, Sunder Khatri, M.V. Swamy (for Abhijit Sengupta) for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered b
~ ""'"
ORDER D

Leave granted.
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated
14.09.2007 passed in Writ Appeal No.740 of 2007. E
~-
The case pertains to allotment/alienation of 3 acres and
18 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.336, Balanagar
Manda!, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District to Hyderabad Allwyn
Employees Co-operative Housing committee, respondent No.5 F
herein, on 4.6.2005. Admittedly, respondent No.5 thereafter
allotted and handed over plots in the said property to various
persons who claimed to be members of the respondent No.5
society (although the appellant contended that they were not
members). G'
··- t
Appellant herein filed a writ petition in the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderbad challenging the alienation/
allotment of the aforesaid land to respondent No.5 herein which
was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 21st August,
H

T
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 2007, inter alia, on the ground that the persons to whom the
respondent No.5 allotted plots were not impleaded.
~ -'
:..
Aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge,
the appellant filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of
B the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the
impugned order, declined to entertain the appellant's challenge
to the alienation made in favour of respondent No.5 on two ,•.
grounds: ..
• 4'-

"(1) the appellant did not offer any explanation for therdelay
c of almost two years between the date of alienation made
in favour of respondent No.5 i.e. 4.6.2005 and filing of the ,-'
writ petition i.e. April, 2007, and

(2) the persons to whom plots have been allotted by
D respondent No.5 and who are in possession of the ..... '1.

individual plots have not been impleaded as parties to the
writ petition and without hearing them, the allotment in
question cannot be annulled. In our opinion, non-
impleadment of the beneficiaries of allotment was fatal to
the writ petition filed by the appellant. n
E
Many of the persons in whose favour plots were allotted/
alienated by respondent No.5 have filed impleadment -f

applications before us. The applications for impleadment are
allowed and they have also been heard.
F
In our opiniqn, natural justice required that the persons in
whose favour respondent No.5 allotted plots in the property and 1--

to whom possession had also been handed ~ver should have
been impleaded in the writ petition and they should have been
G. heard by the High Court. We have recently held in Fertilizers &
Chemicals Travancore Ltd. vs. Regional Director, ES/ & 'f ~·
Others reported in 2009 (11) SCALE 766that no order adverse
to a party should be passed without hearing him. In the present
case, if the writ ·petition was allowed the order will adversely
affect the allottees. Hence, in the interest of justice, we are of
H
ALLWYN HOUSING COLONY WELFARE 305
ASSOCIATION v. GOVT. OF AP. & ORS.
~
the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the Division A
r
Bench of the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with
law after hearing the persons in whose favour plots in the land
have been allotted including the impleaded persons. Delay in
filing the writ petition is condoned.
8
Accordingly, yve accept this appeal, set aside the
_,. )
impugned order of the Division Bench and restore the Writ
Appeal No.740 of 2007 on the roster of the High Court. The
impleaded parties are directed to file their counter affidavit
within three weeks from today before the Division Bench of the
High Court. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed within the next
c
two weeks.

Though, we have allowed the applications for irripleadment
.. "'
~ but if any affected party is still there and he wants to implead
himself in this matter, he is at liberty to file an application for D
impleadment before the Division Bench of the High Court. The
matter shall be listed for final disposal before the Division
Bench immediately after the expiry of the aforesaid period.

We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion
on the merits of the dispute. All contentions are left open to the
E
t parties.

While issuing notice on 21st April, 2008, this Court directed
the parties to maintain status quo. This order of status quo shall
remain in force till the case is decided by the High Court. F

The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed .

...,_._. t