2004 (4) TMI 617 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Sets New Guidelines for Industrial Plot Allocation; Prioritizes Public Interest Over Vested Rights Claims.

Hira Tikkoo Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors.

The HC's final judgment addressed the allotment of industrial plots by UTC, distinguishing between consentees and non-consentees. Consentees were granted ... Allotment of industrial plots by the Union Territory, Chandigarh (UTC) - Challenges to the notification declaring land as reserved forest - New industrial policy of 1990 and its implications - Discrimination between consentees and non-consentees - Compensation and redressal for affected allottees - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the rule of reasonableness and fairness by which every statutory authority is bound, demands that the consentees, who, for no fault on their part, were deprived of the original plots of larger sizes, should not be further made to suffer by demanding from them higher price for the alternative plots of smaller sizes. It would be highly iniquitous to demand from them higher price for smaller sizes of plots and add to their losses caused by undue delay in setting up their industries. The Administration is mainly to be blamed for the situation in which the allottees of plots find themselves today. In preparing scheme and allotting plots, it could not have ignored the notification reserving a part of land for the forest and the restriction to the extent of 900 metres around the Air-Force base. The allottees of the plots have paid full or part price and that amount throughout remained with the Administration. In such circumstances, the Administration must bear a portion of loss, if any, occasioned to it and compensate to some extent the loss caused to the consentees who never objected to allotment of alternative plots of smaller sizes. The direction no. 2 of the High Court, therefore, to the extent of charging price from the consentees as prevailing on the date of draw of lots i.e. 27.3.1991, deserves to be set aside and substituted with the directions that the consentees on being allotted a particular plot of smaller size shall be charged the same price which was prevailing at the time of original allotment of the plot in their favour. Necessary adjustment or refund of price, as the case may be, shall be given to them for the small size of plot allotted. Non-consentees are concerned, we are not prepared to accept that by their action and/or inaction, they can claim parity for allotment with the consentees. The consentees have to be considered in priority as, at the first available opportunity, they agreed to the offer of alternative plots of smaller sizes. The non-consentees not only questioned the offer made by the Administration to provide them plots of smaller sizes but even assailed the government notification declaring major part of the land in the scheme as reserved forest. They might have a legitimate right to approach the courts for necessary reliefs but having failed in their challenges in the court, they can claim no right of being treated similarly with consentees who right from the earliest opportunity were willing and trying through the Administration and the court for early allotment of alternative plots. The consentees and the non-consentees, on the basis of their actions and inactions, constitute two different classes of allottees and a differential treatment to them cannot be held to be unjustified or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. On a just and reasonable ground, the consentees deserve a more favourable treatment than non-consentees more so because plots of small sizes available in the existing scheme in Phase-I & II are extremely limited in number. In the affidavit, there is a second category shown by the Administration as comprising such allottees from whom consent was not asked for as it was proposed to allot them the same size of plot measuring one kanal which they had applied for. In this category, from whom no consent was needed, are allottees of one kanal of plots. Thirteen applicants have been found to have given complete information and fulfilling requisite environmental norms. Their names are also mentioned under category-II of the affidavit. We have stated, that there is no justification for the non- consentees to claim parity with consentees. The third category pointed out by the Administration and some of whom are also before us represented through their counsel are allottees of one kanal of plots. They are being offered same size of alternative plots and from them no consent was asked for. This category of allottees of one kanal of plot are also required to be accommodated in the available alternative plots. On this identification of 23 consentees and 13 allottees of one kanal of plot each, the Administration is justifiably required to consider their cases to allot them alternative plots available in industrial areas phase-I and phase-II as shown in their chart (Annnexure-A) annexed to their affidavit. As a result, the appeals and connected matters are disposed of by substituting/modifying above- mentioned directions for the directions contained in the impugned order of the High Court. Issues Involved:1. Allotment of industrial plots by the Union Territory, Chandigarh (UTC).2. Challenges to the notification declaring land as reserved forest.3. New industrial policy of 1990 and its implications.4. Discrimination between consentees and non-consentees.5. Compensation and redressal for affected allottees.Summary:1. Allotment of Industrial Plots by UTC:The appeals and special leave petitions are against the common judgment dated 30.8.2001 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The case involves applicants for industrial plots in a development scheme by UTC. The Capital of Punjab [Development and Regulation] Act, 1952 and the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 govern the allotment. An advertisement on 14.4.1981 invited applications for industrial plots, resulting in 3735 applications. The Screening Committee shortlisted 339 parties, who were then directed to deposit 25% of the plot cost. However, 254 allottees could not be given possession due to objections from State Authorities regarding the land being reserved forest.2. Challenges to the Notification Declaring Land as Reserved Forest:Certain allottees filed writ petitions in 1987 seeking directions for possession of the allotted plots. On 29.11.1990, the Director of Industries informed allottees that the land was part of a reserved forest, proposing instead to allot one kanal land to each allottee. The new industrial policy of 1990 aimed to accommodate the 254 allottees by reducing the size of larger plots by 25%. Some allottees consented to this, while others (non-consentees) challenged the policy and the notification in the High Court. The single Judge dismissed the writ petitions but expressed a wish for alternative accommodation.3. New Industrial Policy of 1990 and Its Implications:The High Court directed the Administration to issue allotment letters to consentees at the price prevailing on the date of the draw of lots (27.3.1991). Non-consentees were to be refunded with interest. The Administration was also directed to publish a list of consentees and plots earmarked for them. The notification dated 28.4.2000 was held inapplicable to the allotments made on 27.3.1991.4. Discrimination Between Consentees and Non-Consentees:Non-consentees argued that they should be treated equally with consentees. However, the Court held that consentees and non-consentees constitute two different classes of allottees. Consentees, who agreed to the alternative plots at the earliest opportunity, deserved more favorable treatment. The Administration was directed to allot plots to consentees at the original price paid and to consider non-consentees for plots in the new industrial zone at the current price.5. Compensation and Redressal for Affected Allottees:The Court rejected the claims based on vested rights, promissory estoppel, and legitimate expectation against the Administration. It emphasized that public interest outweighs individual claims. The Administration was directed to compensate consentees by allotting alternative plots at the original price and to consider non-consentees for plots in the new industrial zone at the current price. The Court also refused relief to intervenors and parties not involved in the original litigation.Final Directions:1. The prayer for possession of plots allotted in November 1982 is rejected.2. Allotment of alternative plots to consentees and one kanal allottees at the original price.3. Non-consentees to be considered for plots in the new industrial zone at the current price.4. Claims of intervenors and non-parties to the original litigation are rejected.5. The Administration to complete formalities within four months and hand over possession to successful allottees.6. No order as to costs.