Registration-based seniority for Nazul land allotment prevails; executive change to membership-list approval was invalid and unfair.

Senior allotment of Nazul land to cooperative group housing societies was held to remain linked to the date of registration, because a later memorandum making priority depend on approval of the final membership list conflicted with Rule 6(vi), departed from settled administrative practice, and created an uncertain and potentially arbitrary criterion. The change also offended legitimate expectation and fair administrative procedure, as no prior notice or opportunity to represent was given. Challenges to the writ petitions for non-impleadment also failed, because the later allotments were only provisional, subject to the pending proceedings, and caused no real prejudice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government's memorandum dated 20 January 1990, which made the date of approval of the final membership list the criterion for seniority in allotment of Nazul land to cooperative group housing societies, was valid and consistent with Rule 6(vi) of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. (ii) Whether the writ petitions could be invalidated for non-impleadment of societies that had received provisional allotment during the pendency of the challenge.

Issue (i): Whether the Government's memorandum dated 20 January 1990, which made the date of approval of the final membership list the criterion for seniority in allotment of Nazul land to cooperative group housing societies, was valid and consistent with Rule 6(vi) of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981.

Analysis: Rule 6(vi) was construed in the light of the long-standing administrative practice reflected in the DDA brochure and earlier public notices, under which priority for allotment had been linked to the date of registration. The societies' registration was treated as the operative step for seeking allotment, while the later verification of membership lists was only a consequential administrative exercise. The memorandum introduced a new criterion that depended on the pace of verification by the Registrar, a factor beyond the control of the societies and capable of producing uncertainty and arbitrariness. The Court also relied on the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the requirement of fair administrative change, holding that a departure from settled practice should not be introduced without notice and an opportunity to make representations.

Conclusion: The memorandum was invalid, and seniority for allotment was rightly linked to the date of registration of the societies.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions could be invalidated for non-impleadment of societies that had received provisional allotment during the pendency of the challenge.

Analysis: At the time the writ petitions were filed, no society had obtained an unconditional allotment under the impugned criterion. The allotments made later were expressly provisional and subject to the result of the pending proceedings, with an undertaking that they could be reviewed or cancelled and the deposits refunded. In these circumstances, the absence of those societies as parties did not cause real prejudice or render the challenge incompetent.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not defeated by non-impleadment of the provisionally allotted societies.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirmed the registration-based criterion for allotment, and found no procedural defect warranting interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a settled administrative practice governing allotment has created legitimate expectation, a new criterion altering seniority cannot be introduced through executive instruction in a manner that makes entitlement depend on an uncertain or arbitrary administrative process, especially without prior notice and opportunity to represent.

---