(Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Greater Noida Ind. Dev. Auth. & Ors. _____ Petitioner(s)
v.
Anand Kumar ________________________ Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 34942-34943/2013, decided on August 20, 2015
With
SLP (C) No. 36223-36224/2013
SLP (C) No. 37236-37237/2013
SLP (C) No. 39268-39269/2013
SLP (C) No. 2271-2272/2014
SLP (C) No. 2273-2274/2014
SLP (C) No. 2661-2662/2014
SLP (C) No. 2663-2664/2014
SLP (C) No. 2665-2666/2014
SLP (C) No. 2667-2668/2014
SLP (C) No. 2670-2671/2014
SLP (C) No. 2672-2673/2014
SLP (C) No. 2674-2675/2014
SLP (C) No. 2676-2677/2014
SLP (C) No. 2678-2679/2014
SLP (C) No. 2680-2681/2014
SLP (C) No. 2682-2683/2014
SLP (C) No. 2684-2685/2014
SLP (C) No. 2686-2687/2014
SLP (C) No. 2688-2689/2014
SLP (C) No. 2690-2691/2014
SLP (C) No. 2692-2693/2014
SLP (C) No. 2694-2695/2014
SLP (C) No. 2696-2697/2014
SLP (C) No. 2698-2699/2014
SLP (C) No. 4583-4584/2014
SLP (C) No. 4863/2014
SLP (C) No. 8240-8241/2014
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Delay condoned.
2. In view of the extensive hearing that have taken place we feel the necessity of supporting our conclusions to dismiss these Special Leave Petitions with reasons.
3. The core facts that will require specific notice are as follows:
In October, 2004, the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the Development Authority”) had launched a scheme for allotment of residential plots of different sizes. It is the allotment of plots measuring 1000 sq. mtrs. that is the subject matter of the present proceedings. The allotments were to be made on the basis of draw of lots. So far as allotment of plots of 1000 sq. mtrs. is concerned, the draw of lots was held on 18th January, 2005 which, however, got cancelled because of certain anomalies detected in the course of the draw. A second draw was held on 19th January, 2005. Persons claiming to be successful in the draw held on 18th January, 2005 filed writ petitions before the High Court which were disposed of on 20th January, 2005 directing the writ petitioners to move the Development Authority by way of representations and such representations were directed to be decided by the Development Authority within three weeks, if possible. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid order of the High Court dated 20th January, 2005 representations were filed on 27th January, 2005. The same were, however, not disposed of within the time frame, as directed. Subsequently, it appears that some of the successful allottees of the second draw (held on 19th January, 2005) also moved the High Court for directions to the Development Authority to issue letters of allotment. Such writ petitions were also answered by the High Court by directing the concerned allottees to move the Development Authority by filing representations. This was on 1st September, 2005. Pursuant to the orders in both set of writ petitions, the Development Authority passed an order on 5th October, 2005 holding that the draw held on 18th January, 2005 is flawed and that the subsequent/second draw held on 19th January, 2005 is valid. Against the said order dated 5th October, 2005, Writ Petition No. 66109 of 2005 was filed wherein an interim order dated 19th October, 2005 was passed by the High Court staying further proceedings pursuant to the second draw dated 19th January, 2005. This writ petition was dismissed on 26th July, 2007. Thereafter, and on the basis of the order passed in another writ petition being C.M.W.P. No. 48847 of 2007 allotment orders were issued on 29th November, 2007 at a revised rate of Rs. 5900/- per sq. mtr. It may be noticed at this stage that the rate of allotment, according to the Development Authority, was enhanced to Rs. 4500/- (developed plots) and Rs. 4,150/- (undeveloped plots) with effect from 1st April, 2006 and thereafter to Rs. 5900/- per sq. mtr. (for both categories) with effect from 1st April, 2007. The aforesaid allotment at the revised rate was challenged before the High Court which, challenge having been accepted by the impugned order, the Development Authority has instituted the present Special Leave Petitions.
4. The first question that would require determination is whether the SLP Petitioner – Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority had good and sufficient reasons for not making the allotments between 19th January, 2005 (date of the second draw) and 19th October, 2005 (date of the interim order of the High Court restraining such allotments). In the absence of such justification, obviously, the Development Authority cannot be allowed the benefit of the higher rate effective from 1st April, 2007 in the light of the law laid down in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [(2007) 11 SCC 447].
5. The argument on behalf of the Development Authority is that after the second draw was held on 19th January, 2005 there was a criminal investigation in respect of the conduct of the flawed draw that took place on 18th January, 2005 and there also was a departmental enquiry. While the departmental enquiry was concluded on 14th June, 2005 there is no indication as to when the criminal investigation was concluded, if at all, and charge-sheet was filed. While the criminal investigation was with regard to specific criminal acts alleged against the officials of the Development Authority and their culpability in law. The departmental enquiry was also on similar lines and was not a fact finding exercise as to whether there were any lapses or flaws in holding the draw on 18th January, 2005. If that be so, in the absence of any legal impediment to make allotments (that came on 19th October, 2005), the above two stated grounds cannot be held to be sufficient justification for the delayed action on the part of the Development Authority.
6. There is yet another dimension to the stand taken on behalf of the Development Authority in the above aspect of the case. In none of the pleadings either before the High Court or before this Court, the justification now advanced in the course of the oral hearing had been laid in support of the delayed action on the part of the Development Authority in making the allotments. In fact, before this Court, to substantiate the justification advanced reliance is placed on the order dated 5th October, 2005 passed by the Development Authority. Nowhere in the order dated 5th October, 2005 the pendency of the criminal investigation and/or the departmental enquiry had even been mentioned or even suggested as justification/reason for the delay in disposal of the representations and in making the consequential allotments.
7. The sum total of the above discussion would lead us to the conclusion that the Development Authority has failed to satisfy the Court that it was justified in prolonging the matter of allotments pursuant to the second draw dated 19th January, 2005 until the interim order of the High Court dated 19th October, 2005 had intervened to forbid the making of any allotments during the pendency of the writ petition.
8. Irrespective of the above, a question that has confronted the Court in the present Special Leave Petitions is with regard to the power of the Development Authority to enhance the price of allotment de hors the provisions of the Scheme/Brochure in situations where the allotments have been long delayed and no fault can be attributed to the Development Authority for such delay. While it will be difficult to deny to the Development Authority any such power merely on account of the absence thereof in the Scheme/Brochure, in the last resort the Court will have to be satisfied that any action of enhancement of rates is fair, reasonable and is founded on relevant and germane considerations. The action of the Development Authority fails to satisfy the above test in the present group of cases. No basis for the increase in the rates from Rs. 3,425/- per square meter to Rs. 5,900/- with effect from 1st April, 2007 or Rs. 10,500/- per square meter with effect from 1st April, 2008 has been offered in any of the pleadings of the Development Authority in any forum including this Court except for a solitary statement appearing in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit of the Development Authority before the High Court which is to the effect that the prices were increased in a Board meeting “after adopting the procedure laid down for revising the price”. What is the procedure; how it was worked out and applied has not been indicated at any stage of the proceedings. Before this Court also a set of documents titled “Sale Price of Various Land Uses for 2007-2008” had been placed in the course of the oral hearing. Even hypothetically if we are prepared to look into these documents, we are of the view that the same do not offer any explanation or establish a reasonable basis for the enhancement. Specifically, we may refer to the anticipated enhanced price for the year 2007-2008 referred to in the said document as Rs. 2,926/- per square meter. Even if the stand of the Development Authority is accepted that 45% of the above figure has to be added to the sum of Rs. 2,926/- per square meter (as 45% of the land is used for development purposes and is not available for allotment) the figure worked out does not represent the enhanced amount which is Rs. 5,900/- per square meter. Insofar as the amount of Rs. 10,500/- is concerned, we have noticed that the said amount represents the even further enhanced rate applicable with effect from 1st April, 2008. The same appears to have been made applicable to a group of the respondents-allottees by virtue of a very fortuitous fact, namely, the date of allotment is after 1st April, 2008. Why the allotments were so made after 1st April, 2008 is not indicated in any of the pleadings of the Development Authority.
9. For the aforesaid reasons and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the present Special Leave Petitions ought to be dismissed at the threshold. We do so accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.
10. The Development Authority will now and with utmost expedition give full effect to all consequential benefits that will flow to the respondents from this order.
———
