# NA VJYOTI CO-OP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY ETC v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1992] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 709
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1992-09-17
- **Bench:** S. Mohan, G.N. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/na-vjyoti-co-op-group-housing-society-etc-v-union-of-india-and-ors-11556
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

B
Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Nazul Lands) Rules, 1981:
Rules 6(vi), 21-Govemment of India Memo dated 20.1.90 containing
policy decision-Allotment of land to Cooperative Housing Societies-ProceC
dure to be fo//owed-'First come first served'-Meaning of-Seniority for
purposes of allotment-Whether from date of registration or final approval of
list of Members-Doctrine of 'Legitimate Expectation-Applicability of
Administrative Law:
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectati()n-lJeviation from
policy/practice-Affording of opportunity-Need for.
.
D
consistent part
For sometime, the Registrar, CooperatWe Societies was not registering any Group Housing Society under the provisions of Delhi Cooperative
Societies Act, 1972 presumably because there was very little chance of their E
getting land for construction. In the meantime there was large scale
acquisition of land in Delhi and most of the land bad been frozen. Of the
land made available to DDA, it was constructing residential units on 60%
of the land and the balance 40% land was to be allotted to different Group
Housing Societies. One of the norms laid down for such allotment was that
the Society should not have less than 60 and more than 300 members.
On July 16, 1983, a public notice was issued by the Delhi AdministraF
tion to the effect that it had decided to re-open the registration of Group
Housing Societies. The last date for receipt ofapplication was 17th August,
1983 which was further extended to 10th August, 1983. Out of 2600 G
Societies which applied for registration 1406 Societies were registered.
On March 13, 1984, the Registrar issued a Public Notice to the effect
that those societies registered in 1983-84 and desirous of seeking land
through DDA, may apply to the Registrar. Subsequently, time was extended up to July 31, 1985. Most of the societies furnished their list of H
709
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A members for verification. The Registrar approved such lists at various
points of time. The time taken for verification and approval of the lists
varied from 1 day to 5-1/2 years from the date of filing of the lists.
B
On January 20, 1990, the Government of India issued an Office
Memorandum containing guidelines regarding procedure for allotment of
land, according to which the criterion for allotment of land was not on the
basis of the date of registration of the Society, but on the basis of the date
of approval of the final list by the Registrar. On this basis a seniority list
of 409 societies was prepared and allotment of land by draw of lots was
made in respect of 260 societies. Prior to the draw of lots some societies
C filed Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging the validity of the
abovesaid Memorandum dated January 20, 1990.
D
While DOA made allotment of land to 260 societies it specifically
mentioned in the allotment order that the proposed allotment was subject
to the decision on the Writ Petitions.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the Memorandum dated January 20, 1990 and set aside the allotments/proposed allotments. It also indicated that the term 'first come first served' appearing
in Rule 6(vi) of the ODA (Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 meant that
E those Societies who first come for allotment will get preference over the
Societies who applied at a subsequent point of time.
F
G
Being aggrieved by the fligh Court's judgment, the Petitioner
Societies preferred the present Special Leave Petition and Writ Petitions.
Intervention Petitions have 11lso been filed.
On behalf of the petitioners and intervenors, it was contended that
priority on the basis of earlier registration number of the Group Housing
Societies cannot be accepted as reasonable; that the petitioner Societies
would not get allotment in the near future and they may have to wait
indefinitely for a longer time and by such process they were bound to suffer
a serious prejudice not only on account of escalation of cost of construe·
lion with the l

## Text

_Characters 0–39,594 of 56,794. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39594 for what follows._

NA VJYOTI CO-OP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY ETC.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 17, 1992
[S. MOHAN AND G.N. RAY, JJ.]
B
Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Nazul Lands) Rules, 1981:
Rules 6(vi), 21-Govemment of India Memo dated 20.1.90 containing
policy decision-Allotment of land to Cooperative Housing Societies-ProceC
dure to be fo//owed-'First come first served'-Meaning of-Seniority for
purposes of allotment-Whether from date of registration or final approval of
list of Members-Doctrine of 'Legitimate Expectation-Applicability of
Administrative Law:
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectati()n-lJeviation from
policy/practice-Affording of opportunity-Need for.
.
D
consistent part
For sometime, the Registrar, CooperatWe Societies was not registering any Group Housing Society under the provisions of Delhi Cooperative
Societies Act, 1972 presumably because there was very little chance of their E
getting land for construction. In the meantime there was large scale
acquisition of land in Delhi and most of the land bad been frozen. Of the
land made available to DDA, it was constructing residential units on 60%
of the land and the balance 40% land was to be allotted to different Group
Housing Societies. One of the norms laid down for such allotment was that
the Society should not have less than 60 and more than 300 members.
On July 16, 1983, a public notice was issued by the Delhi AdministraF
tion to the effect that it had decided to re-open the registration of Group
Housing Societies. The last date for receipt ofapplication was 17th August,
1983 which was further extended to 10th August, 1983. Out of 2600 G
Societies which applied for registration 1406 Societies were registered.
On March 13, 1984, the Registrar issued a Public Notice to the effect
that those societies registered in 1983-84 and desirous of seeking land
through DDA, may apply to the Registrar. Subsequently, time was extended up to July 31, 1985. Most of the societies furnished their list of H
709
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A members for verification. The Registrar approved such lists at various
points of time. The time taken for verification and approval of the lists
varied from 1 day to 5-1/2 years from the date of filing of the lists.
B
On January 20, 1990, the Government of India issued an Office
Memorandum containing guidelines regarding procedure for allotment of
land, according to which the criterion for allotment of land was not on the
basis of the date of registration of the Society, but on the basis of the date
of approval of the final list by the Registrar. On this basis a seniority list
of 409 societies was prepared and allotment of land by draw of lots was
made in respect of 260 societies. Prior to the draw of lots some societies
C filed Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging the validity of the
abovesaid Memorandum dated January 20, 1990.
D
While DOA made allotment of land to 260 societies it specifically
mentioned in the allotment order that the proposed allotment was subject
to the decision on the Writ Petitions.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the Memorandum dated January 20, 1990 and set aside the allotments/proposed allotments. It also indicated that the term 'first come first served' appearing
in Rule 6(vi) of the ODA (Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 meant that
E those Societies who first come for allotment will get preference over the
Societies who applied at a subsequent point of time.
F
G
Being aggrieved by the fligh Court's judgment, the Petitioner
Societies preferred the present Special Leave Petition and Writ Petitions.
Intervention Petitions have 11lso been filed.
On behalf of the petitioners and intervenors, it was contended that
priority on the basis of earlier registration number of the Group Housing
Societies cannot be accepted as reasonable; that the petitioner Societies
would not get allotment in the near future and they may have to wait
indefinitely for a longer time and by such process they were bound to suffer
a serious prejudice not only on account of escalation of cost of construe·
lion with the lapse of time but also on account of getting refund of hard
earned money paid by such Societies without any interest whatsoever; that
the expression 'first come first served' in Rule 6(vi) of the DDA (Disposal
of Nazul Land) Rules, has not been indicated and explained and it was
H
therefore open 'for the Central Government to issue guidelines consistent
•
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY v. U.0.1.
711
with the principle of fairness and reasonableness by indicating what A
should be the principle for allotment in terms of Rule 6(vi) on tbe basis
of 'first come first served'.
On behalf of the DDA, it was stated that the brochure published by
it clearly indicated that allotment should be made on the basis of the date
of the registration, that registration is an essential condition to become B
eligible to get allotment and previously on the basis of the date of registration priority for allotment has been given; that after the judgment of the
High Court, the Central Government has taken into consideration the
reasonings given by the High Court and having accepted the reasons has
not preferred any appeal from the said judgment and the circular in C
question has been withdrawn by the letter dated August 2, 1991; and that
it has no objection in making allotment with reference to the date of
registration.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition and disposing of the Writ
Petitions and the Intervention Applications, this Court,
D
HELD: 1. The High Court has taken a very reasonable view in
holding that the expression 'first come first served' appearing in Rule 6(vi)
of the DDA (Disposal of Nazul Lands) Rules, 1981 relates to the seniority
with reference to the date of Registration of Group Housing Societies with E
the Registrar. The High Court also noted that in a number of cases the
list of Members was not approved for years together, and it rightly held
that there has to be certainity in the seniority with reference to which
priority in the matter of allotment is to be given and fixation of such
seniority cannot be left to the whims and fancies of any official. It is quite
likely that registration has nofalways been made strictly according to the F
point of time when the applications for registration were received. But the
serial numbers of registration need not be disturbed after such long lapse
of time. Until the new criterion for allotment was given in the memorandum of January 20, 1990, priority in the matter of allotment to- Group
Housing Societies had all along been given with reference to date of G
Registration. In the brochure of 1982 issued by the DDA, such policy of
priority was clearly indicated. [727 B-G]
Udit Narayan Singh Malpatharia and Ors. etc. v. Additional Member,
Board of Revenue, Bihar, [1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 676; Prabodh Venna v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. etc., [1985] 1 SCR 216 and Indian Metals and H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A Fe"o Alloys Ltd., Cuttak v. The Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar,
AIR 1991 SC 1028, referred to.
B
2. The High Court is justified in holding that after registration, the
only thing which was required to be done by the Registrar was to approve
the list of members on proper verification and to forward the cases of
registered Societies to DDA for allotment. It is unfortunate that such lists
were not approved promptly. If such lists had been approved without
inordinate delay, the question of allotment on the basis of the new criterion
as contained in the Memorandum dated January 20, 1990 would not have
arisen because admittedly prior to the new guideline, allotment was
C referable to the seniority in registration. (728 B-D]
3.1. In any event the new policy decision as contained in the
memorandum of January 20, 1990 should not have been implemented
without making such change in the existing criterion for allotment known
D to the Group Housing Societies if necessary by way of public notice so that
they might make proper representation to the concerned authorities for
consideratian of their view points. Even assuming that in the absence of
any explanation of the expression 'first come first served' in Rule 6(vi) of
Nazul Rules there was no statutory requirement to make allotment with
reference to date of Registration, it bas been rightly held by the High Court
E that prior to the new guideline contained the memo of January 20, 1990
the principle for allotment bad always been on the basis of date of
Registration and not the date of approval of the list of members. In the
brochure issued in 1982 by the DDA even after Gazette Notification of
Nazul Rules on September 26, 1981 the policy of allotment on the basis of
F
seniority in registration was clearly indicated. Thus the Group Housing
Societies were entitled to the benefit arising out of 'legitimate expectation'
because of following consistent past practice in the matter of allotment,
even though they may not have any legal right in private law to receive such
treatment. (729 B-E]
G
3.2. The doctrine of'legltimate expectation' imposes in essence a duty
on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant
factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'. Within the conspectus of
fair dealing in case of 'legitimate expectation', the reasonable opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to be affected by any
H change of consistent past policy, come in. No compiling reasons were taken
•
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY v. U.0.1. [RAY, J.]
713
into consideration by the Central Government to make a departure from
A
the existing policy of allotment with reference to seniority in Registration
by introducing a new guideline. On the contrary, the ODA and/or Central
Government do not intend to challenge the decision of the High Court, and
the memorandum of January 20, 1990 has since been withdrawn. In the
facts of the case it was only desirable that before introducing or implementing any change in the guideline for allotment, an opportunity to
make representations against the proposed change in the guideline should
have been given to the registered Group Housing Societies, if necessary,
by way of a public notice. [730 B-E]
B
Council of Civil Se1Vice Union & Ors. v. Minister for Civil Service,
C
[1985] 3 All England Reporter 935, referred to.
Halsbury's Laws of England-Fourth Edition, (Re- issue), Vol. 1(1)
p.151, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Civil) No. 10857 of D
1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.91 of the Delhi High Court
in W.P. 2885 of 1990.
WITH
W.P. Nos.665/91 and 667/91.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
E
K.Madhava Reddy, B.Prakash, G. Prabhakar and Ms. Chitra F
Markandaya for the Appellant/petitioner.
Arun Jaitley, Harish N. Salve, A.K. Ganguli, G.L. Sanghi, S.S. Ray,
Ms. Indu Malhotra, A.K. Gupta, Ranjan Mukherji, V.C. Rishi, Pradeep
Misra, D.V. Sehgal, K.L. Vohra, Shiv Pujan Singh, K.R. Rejeshkaran Pillai, G
Ms. Sheela Goel Ms. Bina Gupta, R. Venkataramani, S. Murlidhar, Arun
K. Sinha, Ashok Kumar Gupta, S.P. Sharma, B.B. Sawhney, Sushi! Kr. Jain,
B.D. Ahmed, Pari;at Sinha, K.R.R. Pillai, Pankaj Kalra, B.Mohan and
Guntur Prabhakar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
A
B
c
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
G.N. RAY, J. Legality and validity of the policy decision of Government of India dated January 20, 1990, containing the guidelines regarding
the procedure for allotment of land by the Delhi Development Authority
(hereinafter referred to as DOA) to different Cooperative Group Housing
Societies are in dispute in this Special Leave Petition No. 10857 of 1991
arising out of the Judgment dated May 10, 1991 of the Division Bench of
the Delhi- High Court in C.W.P. No. 2885_ of 1990 (Kaveri Cooperative
Group Hosing Society Ltd. v. Union of India and· others) and several
applications for intervention and for adding and impleading· of parties IQ
the special leave petition. The backdrop of relevant events in connection
with the issuance of the aforesaid guidelines by the Central Government
have been succinctly indicated in the impugned judgment of the Delhi High
Court and may be stated hereunder:-
Prior to July 16, 1983, for some period of time the Registrar,
Cooperative· Societies, Delhi Administration, (hereinafter referred to as
D Registrar) was not registering any Group Housing Society under the
provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, presumably because
there was very little chance of such societies being able to get land for
construction. As a result of large scale acquisition of land in Delhi either
at the instance of the Central Government or the ODA, most of the land
in Delhi had been frozen. It appears that under the instructions of the
E Union of India, the ODA itself had been constructing for residential units
on 60% land made available to it and 40% of such land was being allotted
by it to different Cooperative Group Housing Societies. One of the norms
which was laid down by the ODA for making allotment to Cooperative
Housing Societies is that the Society should not have less than 60 and more
F
than 300 members. On July 16, 1983, a public notice was issued by the Delhi
Administration to the effect that the administration has decided to re-open
the registration of Group Housing Societies. Those Societies which have
membership between 60 and 300 and who did not own any residential
property and the members are residents of Delhi can be registered. The
application for such registration was to be accepted in the office of the
G Registrar between July 18, 198:; and August 17, 1983 on a prescribed form
to be available from the office. Later on by a Press Note dated August 17,
1983, the period of registration was extended to August 30, 1983. Large
number of persons thereafter formed Group Housing Cooperative
Societies and applied for registration with the Registrar. Out of 2600
H Societies which applied for registration 1406 Societies were registered. The
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY v. U.0.1. [RAY, J.]
715
Societies had to apply and obtain registration by satisfying all the provisions A
of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and the rules framed thereunder.
On March 13, 1984, the Registrar issued a public notice in the leading
newspapers of Delhi to the following effect:-
"DD A has now intimated that they would now consider
allotment of land to Group Housing Societies registered
in 1983- 84. Those Societies who have closed their membership and desire to seek land through DOA are requested to submit their membership list and other
documents to the office of the Registrar, Cooperative
Societies on prescribed proforma available with the office
from 20th March, 1984 onwards."
B
c
ln view of such notice, 1406 Societies which had got themselves
registered were required to submit their final mei:nbership list to the
Registrar and such are also required to submit other documents on the D
prescribed proforma. The list was required to be submitted o.n or before
March 20, 1984. No time limit, however, was stipulated for the submission
of such list. On May 13, 1985, another public notice was issued in which it
was stated that so far, out of 1406 registered Societies, only 652 Societies
had submitted their list in the prescribed proforma for onward transmission
to ODA for the purpose of allotment of land. The public notice dated May
E
13, 1985 indicated that the balance 754 Societies would submit their final
membership list in the prescribed proforma within 30 days of the issuance
of the notice failing which it will be presumed that such Societies were not
pursuing their main objective. The time limit of 30 days was to be reckoned
from May 13, 1985. Such date was, however, extended to July 31, 1985 vide
F
another public notice dated July 2, 1985. It, therefore, appears from the
aforesaid three public notices dated March 13, 1984, May 13, 1985 and July
2, 1985 that those Societies who intended to get allotment of land from the
DOA should submit their final list of membership along with other relevant
documents and affidavits to the Registrar and the Registrar after verifica- G
tion would transmit the said documents to the DOA for the purpose of
allotment of the land. The Central Government formulated ODA (Disposal
of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as Nazul
Rules). It appears that after public notice dated May 13, 1985, 239 more
societies submitted their lists and after the last pub!ic notice of July 2, 1985,
about 400 and odd Societies submitted their lists to the Registrar. It H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
appears that after the lists had been received by the Registrar from various
Societies, correspondence was exchanged between the Registrar and some
of the Societies with regard to the verification of the lists of members
submi'tted by the concerned Societies. The exercise had been undertaken
in order to ensure that the members of the Societies foJfill the criteria to
B
c
become eligible for allotment of flats. The lists submitted by various
Societies were approved by the Registrar at various points of time and it
appears that some of the lists though received earlier were in fact approved
later. Similarly, in case of some Societies though the list was recieved later,
approval was made earlier. It may be indicated here that the DDA issued
a brochure in 1982 titled "The concept of social security takes a step further
to reality". The said brochure contained inter alia the criteria for allotment
of land by DDA to the registered Cooperative Group Housing Societies.
It was specifically mentioned in the criteria for allotment that the allotment
was being made in accordance with the seniority i.e. serial No. and date of
registeration of Societies with the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi,
D subject to filing the list of members for verification by the Registrar and
payment of 25% of the cost of land within 30 days and payment of the
remaining 75% within 90 days from the date of issue of demand notice.
E
F
G
H
On January 20, 1990, the impugned Office Memorandum containing
the guidelines regarding the procedure for allotment of land was issued by
the Government of India to the following effect:-
"The undersigned is directed to refer to the minutes of
the meeting held in this Ministry on 23rd October, 1989,
circulated to all concerned by our O.M. of even number
dated 13.11.1989 and to convey the approval of this Ministry to the procedure outlined below in the matter of
allotment of land to Group Housing Societies in Delhi.
(a) The date of seniority for allotment of land for a
Cooperative Group Housing Society will be date on which
the papers of the Society have been found in order and
approved by the office of the Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Delhi Administration.
(b) In case where part approvals have been accorded by
the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on Different occasions, the last date of approval will be relevant
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY "· U.0.1. [RAY, J.]
for the purpose.
(c) Where the date of approval is the same in the case of
more than one Society, there inter-se seniority will be in
order of the average age of their members in the descending order. Thus the society with a high average age of the
members will rank senior.
(d) Land will be offered by DDA for allotment in minimum lots in a given location or area.
Any approved society will be free to apply. In case the
number of Societies who apply is more than what can be
observed in the land ordered, the allotment will be
decided by the order of seniority as determined above.
These instructions are issued as clarifications to rule 6( vi)
of the DDA (Disposal of Develope.d Nazul Land) Rules
1981, and may be brought into force with immediate
effect."
717
In view of such guidelines, the criterion for allotment of land to the
Cooperative Group Housing Societies was not on the basis of the date of
registration of such Societies but on the basis of the date of approval of
the final list by the Registrar. The Central Government offered lands to
ODA comprising 'Dwarka Project' at Papan Kalan for allotment to various
Group Housing Societies. In view of the guidelines contained in the said
memorandum dated January 20, 1990, a seniority list of presumable 409
Group Housing Societies had been prepared and allotment of land by
drawing of lots was also made in respect of 260 Societies. Such draw of
A
B
c
D
E
F
lots had been taken up on January 17, 1991. Prior to such draw of lots,
C.W.P. No. 2885 of 1990 by Kaveri Cooperative Group Housing Society
Limited and a number of Writ Petitions by other Cooperative Group
Housing Societies were filed in the Delhi High Court for challenging the
legality, validity and the propriety of the said memorandum dated January G
20, 1990. No interim orders were issued by the High Court staying the
allotments but in most of the cases, some interim orders were passed to
the effect that an area of land should be reserved for the Writ Petitioners.
In view of the pendency of such writ proceedings challenging the new
criteria for allotment, the DOA justifiably made allotment to the aforesaid H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
260 Cooperative Group Housing Societies but in the allotment order it was
specifically mentioned that the proposed allotment was subject to the
outcome of the result of the Writ Petitions. It was also stated in the letter
of allotment that if it was felt necessary in view of the decision in the Writ
Petitions, the allotment may have to be reviewed and cancelled in which
B
c
case the entire amount received by the ODA from the allottee Societies
shall be refunded without any payment of compensation or damages.
For the purpose of appreciating the contentions of the parties on the
question of propriety, legality and validity of the said memorandum dated
January 20, 1990, it may be necessary to refer to Rule 6 (vi) and Rule 21
of the Nazul Rules. Such Rule 6(vi) and Rule 21 are set out hereunder:
Rule 6 (vi)
Subject to the other provisions of these rules the Authority
shall allot Nazul land at the predetermined rates in the
D
following cases, namely:
E
F
G
(vi) to cooperative group housing societies, cooperative
housing societies, consumer cooperative societies and
cooperative societies of industrialists on "first come, first
serve basis
11
•
Rule 21
Nazul land of such size,,as the authority may, from time
to time, decide with the approval of the Central Government may be allott~d on lease-hold basis, at predetermined rates to such cooperative societies, registered
under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (35 of
1972) as are specified in clause (vi) of rule 6, subject to
an undertaking given by such society that it shall use such
land for its bonafide purposes or business only."
By the impugned Judgment, the High Court has quashed the said
memorandum of January 20, 1990 and has set aside the allotments made
or proposed to be made pursuant to the criterion contained in the said
memo. The High Court has upheld the contention of the Writ Petitioners
including Kaveri Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., being responH
dent No. 4 in ·the Special Leave petition No. 10857 of 1991, that the
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY v. U.0.1. [RAY, J.]
719
criterion of making allotment on the basis of finalisation of the list of A
members by the Registrar, irrespective of the date of registration of snch
Societies. is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable -and contrary to Rule 6 of
the Nazul Rules. Referring to Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules it has been held
by the High Court that although the expression "first come first served
appearing in Rule 6 has not been specifically explained in the said Rule,
Rule 21 of Nazul Rules indicates that those Societies which are registered
with the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, will be entitled to get allotment
of land. Referring to the public notices, mentioned hereinbefore the High
Court has indicated that there was no application for allotment of land
directly to the DDA by the Cooperative Group Housing Societies. The only
communication from the Societies was to the Registrar who was acting as
an agent or a conduit to the DDA. The registration of Cooperative
Societi~s was not being allowed because the DDA had no land available
for allotment and it was only when the land became available for allotment,
the Registrar and not the DDA issued notice inviting applications for
registration of the Cooperative Group Housing Societies. It was indicated
B
c
by the High court, and in our view very rightly, that the act of registration D
hy the Group Housing Societies pursuant to the public notice dated July
16, 1983 was in effect applications by the Cooperative Societies for allotment of land from the DDA. The Delhi High Court has indicated in this
connection that whereas under the Cooperative Societies Act, the minimum members required for forming the Cooperative Societies should be
10, in the public notice of July 16, 1983, the minimum members required
for being eligible for allotment of land are 60 and the maximum numbers
are 300. The High Court has held that the term "first come first served" is
referable to the date and serial No. of registration of Group Housing
Societies pursuant to the public notice dated July 16, 1983. The High Court
has also indicated that the respondents including the DDA had all along,
until the formulation of new criteria in the impugned memorandum dated
January 20, 1990, followed the principle of giving priority in the matter of
allotment of land to the Group Housing Societies with reference to date
E
F
of registration of the concerned Societies and in the Brochure of 1992 of
DDA such principle was clearly mentioned. The High Court has held that
when DDA itself has understood rule 6 in the aforesaid manner and has G
followed the criterion of priority with reference to date of registration,
ambuguity, if any, in Rule 6 (vi) for not explaining the expression "first
come first served" stands resolved. The High Court has also indicated that
the term
1'first come first served
1
' means that those Societies who first come
for allotment will get a preference over the Societies who applied at a H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A subsequent point of time. After the registration in 1983, there were no.
further applications for allotment. What the Societies were required to do
by the public notices dated March 17, 1984, May 13, 1985 and July 2, 1985,
were only to resubmit their final list of members for verification. According
to High Court, the "first come' act of the Societies took place when they
came to the Registrar and got themselves registered in 1983. It is that date
B and no other date which is relevant. It has been held by the High Court
that the criterion for allotment as contained in the impugned memorandum
dated January 20, 1990 is unreasonable because by the effect of the
principle contained in the impugned memorandum the Societies have been
left at the mercy of the Registrar but fixation of seniority cannot be left to
C the whims and fancies of any offical and there will be a fixity if reference
to date of registration is resorted to. The High Court has indicated that
there may be cases, and they probably are, where full particulars may not
have been supplied by the Societies. But as and when verification has taken
place, it must necessarily relate back to the date when the list of members
was filed. The High Court has noted that there are numerous instances to
D which the attention of the High Court was drawn to show that with no fault
of the concerned Societies, they have been relegated to lower positions in
the seniority list with reference to the date of approval. As an illustration,
the High Court has referred to the case of the petitioner in C.W.P. No.
3219 of 1990, namely, the Thiruvizha Cooperative Group Housing Society
Limited. This Society was registered on October 19, 1983. The List of
E members was received by the Registrar on May 11, 1984. It was sent by the
Registrar to the DDA provisionally on May 29, 1984. Thereafter, !he list
was approved only on January 15, 1990. There is no correspondence which
took place between the Society and the Registrar during the period between May 11, 1984 and January 15, 1990 i.e. for a period of over 5 1/2
F years. The High Court has indicated that by applying the guidelines of the
impugned memorandum, the seniority date which has been assigned to this
Cooperative Society is with effect from January 15, 1990, and it was noted
by the High Court that the list which was approved by the Registrar after
elapse of 5 1/2 years was the same which had been submitted to it by the
Society on May 11, 1984 and there was no change in the membership. The
G High Court has noted that on the other hand there are Societies where the
verification was done most expeditiously and the High Court has cited the
case of a Society at serial No. 91, the verification of whjch was submitted
within one day of the submission of the list. It has been noted by the High
Court that there are about 11 such Societies where the verification was
H completed within 17 days of their submission of the list of members. It has
•
1
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY v. U.O.L [RAY, J.]
721
also been noticed by the High Court that there are about 25 other Group A
Housing Societies where the list was verified within a month. On the other
harid, there are at least 12 other Societies where the lists were verified after
a number of years from the date of submission even though no defects were
indicated in the list originally filed.
B
It has been held inter alia by the High Court that the only exercise
which had to be undertaken by the Registrar after March 17, 1984 was to
verify whether the lists which had been submitted were in order or not.
The Societies already stood registered with the Registrar It has been
indicated by the High Court that it is quite possible that there may be delay
in completing the verification because of non-submission or defective
C
submission of papers in respect of one or two members in a society
consisting of large number of members. In the view of the High Court it
will not be proper and reasonable that because of some defects in the list
of the members, which defect is subsequently removed, the seniority of
the.Society should be radically altered to its disadvantage. Until the new D
guideline contained in the impugned memorandum was made, the seniority
was always fixed on the basis of the date of registration. The date of
verification of the list of members was never considered to be a relevant
criterion for fixing the seniority for the purpose of allotment. The High
Court has also noted that such position had also existed even prior to the
promulgation of Nazul Rules. According to the High Court the Nazul
Rules and Rule 6 in particular merely give si.tu'ory recognition to the
practice which was being followed by the ODA namely allotment ileing
made with reference to date of registration. The High Court has indicated
that in view of long standing practice the office memorandum dated
January W, 1990 laying down a completely different criterion, should have
been made public. The High Court has held inter a/ia that the impugned
memorandum dated January 20, 1990 issued by the Central Government is
arbitrary and unreasonable and also contrary to Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules
E
F
and as such the same must be struck down. The list of seniority which was
prepared in accordance with the said impugned memorandum was G
quashed by the High Court and the allotment made or proposed to be
made pursuant to such list following the guideline made in the impugned
memorandum was also set aside by the High Court. The High Court
directed that it will be open to the respondents to refund the money paid
by all the Societies to whom allotment had been made or proposed to be
made pursuant to the guideline contained in the impugned memorandum
H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A since quashed by the High Court. The High Court has also directed that
if any Society has filed its list but the same has not been approved the said
verification should be compkted and the list approved or rejected within
a period of three months from the date of the judgment. The High Court
also issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot lands to
B the Group Housing Societies according to seniority i.e. the date of registration on the basis of fresh list to be prepared within three months from the
date of the judgment. The names of those societies should be provisionally
included in th~ seniority list whose verification is yet to take place and their
names would be subject to deletion if the lists are rejected within the
stipulated period of three months for any reason whatsoever. The High
C Court has also directed that the allotment should take place with respect
to the land which was a subject matter of the draw of January 17, 1991 and
such allotment should be completed within a period of six months from the
date of the Judgment. The allotment to the Societies which were registered
prior to the petitioners' Societies or suc)l Societies which were registered
D under 'Awas Sakar Yojna' will not in any way be affected by the Judgment
of the High Court.
Mr. Madhva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
the special leave petition, has contended before us that priority on the basis
of earlier registration number of the Group Housing Societies cannot be
E accepted as reasonable. Mr. Reddy has contended that the registration has
also not been made strictly on the basis of the receipt of the application.
There are instances where although the applications were filed earlier, it
took unnecessarily long time to scrutinise and to allot a registration number. If the priority is fJXed with reference to the date of registration,
F
injustice is bound to be meted out to a number of Societies which though
applied earlier were allotted registration number at a later point of time
for no fault on their part. Mr. Reddy has also contended that Rule 21 of
Nazul Rules refers to registration and such Rule only indicates that for
eligibility of a Society to get allotment, the Group Housing Society must be
G registered. Such Rule, however, does not indicate in any way that the date
of registration will be any determining factor for allotment of land. He has
submitted Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules does not explain the term "first come
first served'\ Since the Rule has not given any indication about the meaning
of the said expression, the Central Government is quite justified in supH plementing the Rule by indicating the criterion in the impugned memo. In
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY v. U.0.1. [RAY,J.]
723
that view of the matter, there is no occasion to hold that statutory rule has A
been sought to be supplanted by an executive direction. He has submitted
that the Central Government on consideration of relevant facts, in its
wisdon has accepted the principle or guideline for allotment of land to
Group Housing Societies and has indicated that with reference to date of
approval of the fmal list by the Registrar in respect of a registered Society,
B
priority in the matter of allotment will be given. Mr. Reddy has contended
that if a Society gets itself Registered by filling a list of members but it does
not take any further step to get the list of its members approved or does
not file the proper list of members eligible for allotment, it will .be unjust
and improper to give priority to such a Group Housing Society simply
because the said Society got itself registered earlier. Mr. Reddy has conC
tended that ultimately the Society should not only be registered buc must
have requisite numbers of eligible members. Such requisiie nucnber of
eligible members is essentially a prerequisite for getting allotment of land
from the DDA. Hence, approval of list of eligible members within the
parameter of 60 and 300 is an essential condition for getting allotment and D
if the impugned circular has indicated by laying down a principle that the
date of final approval of a list of members of registered Societies will be
determining factor for priority in the '1tatter of allotment, it cannot be
contended that such principle or guideline is in any way unreasonable,
improper and/or unjust or illegal and without jurisdiction. Mr. Reddy has
E
submitted that the Central Government has an authority to issue guideline
for allotment of land by DDA and suchJ;Uideline not having infringed any
statutory Rule, and the same being fair and reasonable for the aforesaid
reasons, was not liable to be quashed. Consequently the impugned Judgment of the High Court setting aside the allotment made or proposed to
F
be made to Group Housing Societies on the basis of the guideline contained in the same memorandtlln dated January 20, 1990 is also unjust and
illegal and the impugned Judgment of the High Court should, ~refor_e,_
be set asid~- Mr .. Reddy has contended that the brochure was issued in
1982. Such brochure, therefore, cannot outweigh the statutory rules as G
contained in the Nazul Rules supplemented by execntive instructions issued
by the competent authority. Mr. Reddy has further submitted that unfortunately the High Court has taken into consideration the delay in approving
the list of members of so.;e of the Group ffousing Societies and the
prejudice suffered by such ;>ocieties for the inordinate delay but the other H
I'.'.
.~ f
..•
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
side of the pkture has not been taken note of by the High Court, namely,
there are number of Societies which had been re~stered at a later point
of time although they had made applications earlier by complying with the
formalities. Since registration has not been made in all cases strictly on the
basis of application with proper list of members and with reference to the
B date of such application, the date of registration should not be considered
as a proper criterion for giving priority in the matter of allotment. Mr.
Reddy has also contended that in any event the Writ Petitions should not
have been entertained by the Delhi High Court because the Societies which
were directed to deposit the money for getting allotment orders and in
C whose favour lots were drawn and were utlimately given allotments of land
were not impleaded as parties. Mr. Reddy has contended that it is an
accepted principle consistent with natural justice that if some persons are
likely to be affected on account of striking down a policy or decision
enuring to their benefit, the Court should not embark upon the consideration of the propriety, correctness and validity of such policy or decision in
D the absence of such persons. In support of such contention, reference was
made to the decision of this Court in the case of Udit Narayan Singh
Malpaharia and others, etc. v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar,
[1963] Suppl 1 SCR p. 676 and Prabodh Venna v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others etc. [1985] 1 SCR p. 216.
E
F
On behalf of the intervenors, the learned counsels also supported the
contentions made by Mr. Reddy and submitted that the impugned decision
of the High Court has resulted in gross injustice to a number of Group
Housing Societies who took pains in not only getting themselves registered
but in submitting proper lists of members and had deposited large swns of
money.