Supreme Court of India
HIRALAL CHAWLA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
- Citation
- 1990 INSC 32
- Decided
- 13 February 1990
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- RANGANATH MISRA
Holding
The Court held that, considering the delay and changed circumstances, the land to be allotted to the 2,380 eligible allottees shall be 96.29 acres with reduced plot sizes of 100, 130, 150 and 180 sq. metres, price fixed at Rs 1,000 per sq. metre with 12% interest credit, and allotment to be completed within nine months.
Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with writ petitions filed under Article 32 challenging the acquisition of land previously bought by cooperative housing societies for residential purposes when the area was later notified for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). The Court examined the validity of the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the fairness of the scheme for allotting plots to 2,380 eligible applicants. It modified the earlier scheme, increasing the land to be allotted from the proposed 90 acres to 96.29 acres and reducing the plot sizes to 100, 130, 150 and 180 square metres respectively. The Court fixed the price at Rs 1,000 per square metre, allowed a 12% interest credit on amounts already deposited, and ordered the balance to be paid in three instalments. Allotment of the developed plots was directed to be completed within nine months from 1 March 1990, with failure to pay resulting in disqualification. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the acquisition of land already held by cooperative housing societies is valid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the scheme for allotment of plots can be altered to reduce the area and adjust plot sizes.
- What price per square metre should be charged for the allotted plots given the passage of time and inflation.
- Whether interest on amounts deposited by allottees should be credited against the price and at what rate.
- What eligibility criteria and time‑limits should govern the final allotment and payment of instalments.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 32
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4(1)
Subjects
Land acquisitionCooperative housing societiesPlot allotmentPrice escalationInterest on depositsEligibility criteriaNOIDAArticle 32Scaling down landDevelopment authority
Judgment
HIRALAL CHAWLA & ANR.
v.
A
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
FEBRUARY 13, 1990
. [RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND
S.C. AQRAWAL, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4( J)~NOIDA~Lan4
acquired by cooperative housing societies prior to notification in favour
of Development Authority-Validity of.
Certain cQOperative housi!lg societies comprismg of the peti,
tioners a11d others !tad acquired lands in the tra!1S·J8J11Una area Of
Uttar Pradesh prior to the setting up of the New Okhla I11dustrial
Development Authority in 1976. When the said lands came to be
notified for the Development Authority writ petitions were filed in 1983
under Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing the acquisition. In its D
order dated January 14, 1985 the Court had directed the Authority to
hand over actual possession of plots to allottees involved in the dispute.
Since a dispute had arisen as to the eligibility of a large number of
applicants who had failed to keep to the time schedule in the matter of
payment the Court in its interim order dated September 2, 1983 had
directed the Authority to reserve 269 acres of land in addition to the E
land already allotted. The petitioners in the instant case belorig to this
category.
t· The total number of persons entitled to allotment has been
cjetermined at 2,380. The Authority's scheme for the petitioners had
stipulated four sizes of plots viz. 112.5 sq. metres, 162 sq. metres, 202.5 F
sq. metres and 250 sq. metres. They, therefore, claimed an area of 130
acres out of the 269 acres set apart for them. The Authority, however,
sought to reduce this area to 90 acres and the plot area to 77. 73, 112.3,
140.45 and 173.53 sq. metres respectively.
Disposing of the petitions, the Court. G
HELD: If the scaling down from 130 acres to 90 acres is to be
done the plots are bound to he of odd sizes and working out may be
difficult. Therefore, instead of 90 acres of land the total area to be
released on that account should be 96.29 acres and the different sizes of
plots as provided in tJte scheme shall stand reduced to 100 sq. metres, H
325
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.
130 sq. metres, 150 sq. metres and 180 sq. metres respectively. 71
A
decimals of land should also be set apart for the other applicants being
dealt with separately. The plots are to be developed by the Authority in
accordance with the norms laid down, and allotted within a period of
nine months beginning from 1st of March, 1990. [329H-330F, 331F]
B Prices have gone up in every sphere. To bind the Authority by the
terms of its scheme. at this point of time would not at all be fair. These
2,380 persons have already deposited huge amounts of money said to be
about five crores of rupet's with the Authority and the money has been
held on account without u,tilisation, as no final decision had been taken.
The current rate per square metre is Rs.1,200. Taking into considera-
tio.n the fact that the members have waited too long for allotment of
c their plots, the Authority should be permitted to charge Rs.1,000 per
square metre. Every member who has deposited any sum of money with
the Authority against proposed allotment shall be entitled to 12%
interest on such amount from the date of deposit till the actual allotment
and such interest accrued in favour of the person shall be entitled to
D adjustment against actual price of land to be worked out@ Rs.1,000 per ·
square metre. Balance amount, if any, shall have to be paid by every
person included in the figure of 2,380 within three months from the date
of the order in monthly instalments. Failure to pay any of the instal·
ments within the time limit indicated shall disqualify· such person from
allotment. The terms in regard to allotment for the remaining few
E persons shall also be the :1ame. {330G-331E]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 975 of 1986.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia).
F D.D. Thakur, V.C. Mahajan, S. Markandaya, G.S. Rao,
Sreepal Singh and Ms. Kusum Chowdhary for the Petiticmers. J
R N. Trivedi, S.C. Batra and Raju Ramachandran for the
Respondents.
G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. The dispute in this group of writ
petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution relates to allotment of
land for residential purposes by New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority (shortly known as 'NOIDA'). NOIDA is a trans-Jamuna
H housing project set up by the Uttar Pradesh Government in the year
HIRALAL CHAWLA v. STATE OF U.P. !MISRA, J.] 327
1976. Prior to the setting up of the NOIDA, the Defence Services
A
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 NO IDA, writ petition
No. 9034 of 1983 was filed challenging the acquisition; the federation
also filed a separate writ petition being 1588 of 1984. Some other writ
petitions by the different parties were also filed. On 14th January, B
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 re-conciliation rather than
confrontation prevailed all throughout. All reasonable
suggestions emanating from both sides either accepted or
c
seriously considered by both sides with a view to imple-
menting the scheme under which plots were to be allotted.
Only three points remain which necessitated court's
intervention. Having examined them we direct:
D
(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 sup-
plied within six weeks from today.
(2) Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel urged that NOIDA E
will be entitled to escalation charges for'the year 1981 and
1982 which works out at the rate of Rs.20 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 F
deposited by the allottees with the NOIDA for some time
and as the scheme had not been implemented as per time
schedule provided in the scheme itself, to meet possession
of plot to each allottee had to be handed over some where
in 1982 and which would be now done in 1985 pursuant to
the directions yet without setting a precedent ahd having G
regard to the facts of this case and special circumstances
· pointed out to this Court with regard to· the present posi-
tion, 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 H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.
cl)arge i)as to be paid by all allottees whose plots are said to
A
be situated at a comparable advantageous position, such
as, corner plots, plots abutting to the main road or both
etc. There may be advantage in taking the corner plot or a
plot abutting on t)le road, but that is fortuitous and not be
one's volitional selection. Having regard to the special facts
of this case and t!:ie element of luck in getting a particular
plot we direct that the NOIDA would not be entitled to
collect special charge or anything extfa 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
c 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.
p Mr. Soli Sorabjee, learned counsel, in this connection
pointed out that under the interim order of this Court
dated September 3, 1988, amongst others NOIDA was
directed to reserve 269 acres of land in sectors41 and 42 or
iii adjoining sectors in addition to the land already allotted
to the petitioners. Therefore, their cases deserve consi-
deration 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
F applicant and decide whether any one 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 .......... "
G On 16th December, 1985, thefollowingorderwasmade:
"The parties are agreed that the dispute in regard to pay-
ment of interest and the eligibility for allotment of plots
may be decided by Shri D.A. Desai, Chairman, Law Com-
mission, as mediator and not as Arbitrator. The parties
fl agree that whatever decision is given by Shri D.A. Desai
i
_;
:.>(
HIRALAL CHAWLA v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.]
will be accepted by them as binding and there will be no A
question of challenging it in any form whatsoever. The
parties also agree that simultaneous with the execution of
329
documents possession of the plots shall be forthwith
handed over to those who are admitted as eligible for allot-
ment and interest shall be paid by them at the rate of 15%
per annum from the da.te of the order made by this Court, B ·
namely, 2.4.1985, subject to adjustment one way or the
) other according to the decision which may be given by Shri
D .A. Desai."
The decision contemplated by the December order took some
time to be given and the report furnished to this Court came to be
hNly debated. More than three years have been taken on that account. C
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.
We suggested to Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the D
Federation of Co-operative Housing Societies and Mr. Trivedi,
learned Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh appearing for
NOIDA and counsel appearing for the different parties to sit across
the table and work out an acceptable modality by which the problem
could be best answered and we are happy to note that their efforts
have been to a large extent successful and the scope of what at one E
time appeared to be an unending dispute had now been substantially
reduced 'and confined to certain issues which require to be dealt with by
this order of ours.
It is agreed that the total number of persons who are entitled to
allotment is 2,380 and the Federation representing the various F
\ cooperative societies has drawn up the particulars of these 2,380
applicants. At the hearing, counsel and NO IDA authorities present in
Court had agreed to allotment of 90 acres out of the 269 acres set apart
by this Court's earlier order. In a written note submitted by Mr.
Thakur it has been brought to our notice that if their initial require-
ment of 130 acres is reduced to 90 acres, a plot 1,f 112.5 square metres G
will have to be scaled down to 77.73; similarly a plot of 162 square
metres will have to be reduced to 112.3 square metres; a plot of 202.5
( squre metres will have to be reduced to 140.45 square metres; and a
plot of 250 square metres will have to be reduced to 173.59 square
metres. It has not been disputed that the four categories of plots were
.stipulated in the scheme. If this scaling down is to be done the plots are H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 1 S.C.R.
bound to be of odd sizes and working out may be difficult. We have,
A therefore, decided that instead of 90 acres of land the total area to be
released on that account should be 96. 29 acres in all and different sizes )
of plots as provided in the scheme shall stand reduced to the sizes
indicated below:
B
S.No. As per scheme Plots now to be allotted
(Sq. metres) {Sq. metres)
l. 112.5 100
2. 162 130
c 3. 202 150
4. 250 180
Apart from 2,380 eligible allottees there are separate applica-
D tions which are before the Court already and are being dealt with
separately. To meet their claims we are of the view that 71 decimals
should also be set apart and the same would be subject to such orders
as lhe Court may ultimately make in these cases. In the event of any
area being unallotted the same would revert back to NOIDA.
E The plots to be allotted are to be developed by NOIDA. While
the federation and the other petitioners wanted that a three months'
limit should be fixed it has been pleaded on behalf of the NOIDA that
the time limit should be two years. There is a limit to waiting and
human patience and the span of the life of the applicants is not avail-
able to be extended by NO IDA. Taking an overall picture of the mat-
F .
ter we direct that a period '
of nine months beginning from Ist of March,
1990, is the limit within which developed plots shall be allotted to the )
2,380 entitled persons now represented by the Federation and such
other persons as referred to above.
The next relevant poim for consideration is what should be the
G price to be paid. We have already indicated that this Court in its order
dated 14th January, 1985, had not agreed for any escalation charges.
- More than five years have since been rolled by. Turn of events have
taken an unwieldy course. Prices have gone up in every sphere and the
rupee has lost its value over the years. To bind NO IDA by the terms of
its scheme at this point of time would not at all be fair. We may point
H
HIRALAL CHAWLA v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 331
out at this stage that these 2,380 persons have already deposited huge A
amounts of money said to be about five crores of rupees with NOID A
and the money has been held on account without utilisation, as no final
decision had been taken. Undoubtedly this money must be fetching
interest. Mr. Ramachandran learned counsel appearing for NOIDA
has indicated that current rate per square metre is Rs.1,200. Taking
into consideration the fact that these 2,380 members have waited too a
long for allotment of their plots, we are of the view that NOIDA
should be permitted to charge @ Rs.1,000 per square metre. Every
member who has deposited any sum of money with NOIDA against
proposed allotment shall be entitled to 12% interest on such amount
from the date of deposit till the actual ;illotment and such interest
accrued in favour of the person shall be entitled to adjustment of such C
interest against actual price of land lei be worked out @Rs.1,000 per
square metre. Balance amount, if any, shall have .to be paid by every
person included in tile figure of 2,380 within three months from now in '
monthly instalments. The !st instalment is to be paid on or before 31st
March, 1990; the 2nd instalment to be paid on or before 30th April,
1990; and the 3rd instalment to be paid on or before 31st May, 1990. It D
shall be the obligation of the Federation to duly notify every member
of the direction and the time factor forthwith as failure to pay any of
these instalments within the time limit indicated above shall disq11alify
such person from allotment and NOIDA would thereafter be only
obliged to refund the money lying to the credit of the defaulter with
bank rate of interest. The terms in regard to allotment for the remain- l\
ing few persons as stated above shall also be the same.
Town planning in NOIDA is said to be in accordance with the
norms laid down by itself and the same are prescribed by the Board of
which the Chief Town and Country Planner of Uttar Pradesh is a.
member. We direct that all the norms laid down by NOIDA in the F
matter of development shall be strictly followed. Supervision of this
operation of course shall be by NOIDA but we hope and trust that tile
federation of the different societies would cooperate with NOIDA in
this regard.
fhe order reserving 269 acres of land is vacated, subject to th~ 0
allotments indicated. The writ petition is disposed of with these direc-
tions. There shall be no order as to costs.
P.S.S. Petitions disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search