TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 1171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....857/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7124/2000), C.A. No. 6858/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 16857/1999), C.A. No. 6859/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 19344/1999), C.A. No. 6860/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7127/2000), C.A. No. 6861/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7026 /2000), C.A. No. 6862/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7030/2000), C.A. No. 6863/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 12982/1998), C.A. No. 6864/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7031/2000), C.A. No. 6865/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7013/2000), C.A. No. 6866/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7016/2000), C.A. No. 6867/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7029/2000), C.A. No. 6868/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7018/2000), C.A. No. 6869/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7020/2000), C.A. No. 6870/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7025/2000), C.A. No. 6871/ 2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7024/2000), C.A. No. 6872/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7021/2000), C.A. No. 6873/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7008/2000), C.A. No. 6874/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7019/2000), C.A. No. 6875/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7023/2000), C.A. No. 6876/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7015/2000), C.A. No. 6877/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7027/2000), C.A. No. 6878/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7118/2000), C.A. No. 6879/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7116/2000), C.A. No. 6880/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7115/2000), C.A. No. 6881/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 20722/2000), C.A. No. 6882/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 1979/2001), C.A. No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For nearly a decade, the decisions were taken by the Government of Haryana in terms of the decision in S.R.Dasss case referred to above. An argument was submitted before the High Court that in view of this particular feature of this case that the matter had been earlier judicially considered and certain guidelines were given to the Government in the matter of making discretionary allotment to an extent of 5 per cent and that new principles have been set out in Anil Sabharwals case and, therefore, the submission was made before the High Court that the decision should be made effective prospectively. The High Court, however, found no good reason to hold the allotments made by respondent No. 3 in the case under the discretionary quota should be remained undisturbed. The High Court also stated that the doctrine of prospective overruling cannot be applied because such power can be invoked only by this Court and not by the High Court. The matter was carried in appeal to this Court. This Court by an order made on 7.5.1997 dismissed the same subject to certain observations. Thereafter, the High Court took steps by directing issue of a public notice in regard to certain aspects of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssible misinterpretation by this Courts order dated 7.5.97. We may, however, add that the only question for examination by this Court in Sanjay Jain vs. Anil Sabharwals case being all the allotments made subsequent to 31.10.89, our order is also not to be construed as inhibiting any separate/independent action in respect of allotments for any other period including period prior to 31.10.89. This appeal is disposed of with this clarification. [emphasis supplied] The question for consideration now is in what manner discrimination between the allottees subsequent to 31.10.89 can be avoided. In relation to classification made by the High Court, the grievances are made before us that the same does not take note of cases of (i) bona fide purchasers, who did not have sufficient funds with them to start the construction and who have not acquired these plots without any profit motive; (ii) allottees to whom possession was not handed over in time for them to commence construction who stand on the same footing as those in respect of whom exception is made, who have made construction on the plots in question; (iii) members of armed forces and Indian Administrative Officers who are also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of law, prior to the date of the declaration are validated. This is done in larger public interest. Therefore, the subordinate forums which are bound to apply law declared by this Court are also duty bound to apply such dictum to cases which would arise in future. Since it is indisputable that a court can overrule a decision there is no valid reason why it should not be restricted to the future and not to the past. Prospective overruling is not only a part of constitutional policy but also an extended facet of stare decisis and not judicial legislation. These principles are enunciated by this Court in Baburam vs. C.C. Jacob & Ors., 1999 (3) SCC 362, and Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1997 (5) SCC 201. These appeals, therefore, stand allowed to the extent indicated above and declaring that the judgment of the High Court in Anil Sabharwal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [supra] shall be effective from 23.4.1996. In the event in any of the cases any allotment has been cancelled, the same shall be brought in conformity with the order made by us whether those allottees are parties in these proceedings or not. The declaration made by us will have a general application.....