2001 (9) TMI 1171 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order, Implements Anil Sabharwal Judgment Retroactively

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order, making the judgment in Anil Sabharwal's case effective from 23.4.1996. Allotments made before this date ... Prospective declaration of law - prospective overruling - allotments out of the discretionary quota - avoidance of discrimination between allottees - accountability of authorities for arbitrary allotments - application of earlier administrative practice under S.R. DassProspective declaration of law - prospective overruling - avoidance of discrimination between allottees - Whether the High Court's decision in Anil Sabharwal should be given prospective effect and, if so, the date from which it should operate. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that to prevent reopening settled affairs and to avoid discrimination and multiplicity of proceedings it is appropriate to make the High Court's judgment in Anil Sabharwal effective prospectively. Prospective application is a recognized device to validate prior actions taken contrary to a newly declared rule and to protect parties who relied on earlier law or administrative practice. Applying these principles and having regard to interim orders and the need to prevent disruption, the Court fixed 23.4.1996 as the date from which the High Court's judgment would be effective so as to iron out anomalies and avoid discrimination among allottees.The judgment in Anil Sabharwal is declared effective prospectively from 23.4.1996.Allotments out of the discretionary quota - accountability of authorities for arbitrary allotments - avoidance of discrimination between allottees - Whether allotments made out of the discretionary quota after 31.10.1989 fall within the scope of this Court's earlier direction and must be treated alike for examination of legality and accountability. - HELD THAT: - This Court clarified that its earlier order dated 7.5.1997 concerned allotments made after 31.10.1989 and directed that such allotments be treated uniformly so as to examine the accountability of the authorities and to prevent discrimination among post-31.10.1989 allottees. The clarification rejects any wider reading that would reopen all allotments prior to that date under that specific direction, while permitting independent action in respect of other periods.All allotments out of the discretionary quota made after 31.10.1989 are to be treated alike for examination of legality and accountability as per this Court's clarification.Application of earlier administrative practice under S.R. Dass - cancellation of prior allotments after due procedure - Whether allotment orders made prior to 23.4.1996 can be cancelled and on what basis. - HELD THAT: - The Court recognized that the decision in S.R. Dass had governed administrative practice for nearly a decade and many acted on that basis; therefore the Anil Sabharwal principles are made prospective to 23.4.1996. However, the Court also made clear that allotment orders made prior to 23.4.1996 may still be cancelled if they are not in conformity with the S.R. Dass decision, provided cancellation is effected after following due procedure. Further, where cancellations have already been made, they must be brought into conformity with this Court's directions, whether the allottees are parties to these proceedings or not.Allotments prior to 23.4.1996 may be cancelled if not in conformity with S.R. Dass, but such cancellation must follow due procedure; existing cancellations must be conformed to this Court's order.Final Conclusion: Appeals are allowed in part: the High Court's judgment in Anil Sabharwal is given prospective effect from 23.4.1996; post-31.10.1989 discretionary allotments are to be treated uniformly for examination of accountability; and pre-23.4.1996 allotments remain subject to cancellation if not in conformity with S.R. Dass after following due procedure, with existing cancellations to be conformed to this Court's directions. Issues Involved:1. Scope of Section 30 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1988.2. Validity of discretionary allotment of plots by the Chief Minister.3. Prospective application of judicial decisions.4. Classification and exceptions in plot allotments.Detailed Analysis:1. Scope of Section 30 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1988:The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 30 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1988, as interpreted by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court had ruled that while the Government can reserve plots during urban estate development, this power is not unlimited. The High Court rejected the argument that the Chief Minister has absolute discretion in plot allotment immune from judicial scrutiny. The High Court mandated that distinguished and needy individuals could be granted land based on guidelines and that the Government of Haryana should frame and notify an appropriate policy for such allotments, inviting applications through public notices.2. Validity of discretionary allotment of plots by the Chief Minister:The High Court had previously addressed this issue in S.R. Dass vs. State of Haryana, 1988 PLJ 123, establishing principles and conditions for discretionary allotments. However, in Anil Sabharwal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 1987 (2) PLR 7, new principles were set, leading to a conflict. The High Court found no reason to maintain the allotments made under the discretionary quota by respondent No. 3 and rejected the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling by the High Court, stating that only the Supreme Court could invoke such power.3. Prospective application of judicial decisions:The Supreme Court considered the prospective application of the High Court's decision in Anil Sabharwal's case. The Court noted that the High Court's decision should be effective from a prospective date to avoid discrimination and anomalies. The Court fixed 23.4.1996, the date of the interim order, as the effective date for the High Court's judgment. This approach was adopted to prevent reopening settled issues and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, aligning with principles of prospective overruling as part of constitutional policy and stare decisis.4. Classification and exceptions in plot allotments:The Supreme Court addressed grievances regarding the High Court's classification of exceptions for certain allotments. The Court highlighted cases of bona fide purchasers, delayed possession, armed forces members, and individuals with serious health issues, indicating that further classifications would complicate the matter. The Court emphasized that the decision in S.R. Dass's case had been followed for nearly a decade, and altering the established state of affairs based on new principles from Anil Sabharwal's case would be unfair. The Court declared that the High Court's judgment in Anil Sabharwal's case would be effective from 23.4.1996, ensuring that all allotments made prior to this date should conform to the decision in S.R. Dass's case, following due procedure.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court's order to make the judgment in Anil Sabharwal's case effective from 23.4.1996. It clarified that allotments made prior to this date could be cancelled if not in conformity with S.R. Dass's decision, following due procedure. The Court's decision aimed to avoid discrimination, ensure fairness, and maintain public interest by applying the principles of prospective overruling. The writ petitions related to the case were disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed.