Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8526 OF 2011
(Arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 34168 of 2009)
Delhi Administration through its Secretary ......
Appellant
Versus
Umrao Singh ......
Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8527 OF 2011
(Arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 35196 OF 2009)
Delhi Administration through its Secretary ......
Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumari ......
Respondent
O R D E R
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
2
Leave granted.
2. These are appeals against the common judgment
and order dated 15.12.2008 of the Division Bench of the
High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition Nos.2147 of
1992 and 2148 of 1992 (for short the `impugned order’).
3. The facts very briefly are that in the year 1959,
the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, set
up a Committee to study the problems of introducing
measures of control on land values and stabilizing land
prices in the urban areas of Delhi and this Committee
submitted its report recommending some measures.
The Government of India considered the
recommendations and conveyed its decision to the Chief
Commissioner, Delhi, by its letter dated 02.05.1961
regarding acquisition, development and disposal of land
(hereinafter called `the 1961 Scheme’).The 1961 Scheme
inter alia contemplated that land may be allotted at pre-
determined rates, namely, at the cost of acquisition and
development plus the additional charges mentioned in
3
the Scheme, to individuals whose land has been
acquired as a result of the Chief Commissioner’s
notifications dated 17.07.1959, 03.09.1957, 13.11.1959
and 10.11.1960 or other such notifications with a view
to rehabilitate such individuals. Pursuant to the 1961
Scheme, land-owners, whose land was acquired, applied
for allotment of alternative plots pursuant to
advertisements inviting applications and after the
necessary requirements as stipulated in the 1961
Scheme were complied with, plots were allotted to the
persons who were the recorded owners prior to the issue
of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act.
4. By an Officer Order dated 03.04.1986 issued by the
Delhi Administration, Delhi, Land and Building
Department, the 1961 Scheme was amended. The
Office Order dated 03.04.1986 is extracted
hereinbelow:-
“DELHI ADMINISTATION, DELHI
4
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
VIKAS MINAR, NEW DELHI.
37(32)/1/12 Dated: 3rd April' 86
Office Order
In supersession of and previous order issued on
the subject, the Administrator Delhi is pleased
to order that following norms should be followed
in respect of allotment of alternative plots in lieu
of the land acquired for Planned Development of
Delhi under the scope of large scale Acquisition,
Development and Disposal of land in Delhi of the
Government of India contained in their letter
dated 2.5.1961.
1. In order to make applicant eligible for all
allotment of alternative plot, the
minimum land acquired for Planned
Development of Delhi will be one bigha
instead of 150 sq. yds. which was being
followed earlier.
2. In case the applicant has purchased the
requisite land of 1 bigha he should have
purchased the same 5 years earlier than
the date of notification under Section 4 of
the Delhi Land Acquisition Act in order to
make him eligible for allotment of
alternative plot.
3. Condition No. 2 will, however, not be
applicable in respect of ancestral cases.
4. Minimum size of the plot will be restricted
to 250 sq. yards where land acquired is
more than 10 bighas. Cases where land
acquired is more than 5 bighas but upto
5
10 bighas plot size of 150 sq. yds. will be
recommended and in respect of the cases
where the land acquired ranges between 1
bigha to 5 bighas, the size of the plot will
be restricted to 80 sq. yrds.
5. The plot will be allotted by DDA on pre-
determined rates fixed by the Competent
Authority from time to time.
It is also clarified that these orders shall also
apply to all pending applications.
(P.S. Bhatnagar)
SECRETARY
(LAND AND BUILDING)”
It was, thus, stipulated in the amended Scheme that in
case the applicant has purchased the requisite land of
one bigha, he should have purchased the same five
years earlier than the date of notification under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act in order to make him
eligible for allotment of alternative plot.
5. On 27.01.1984, a notification was issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of
3787 bighas and 12 biswas of land situated in Village
Andheria for the public purpose of Planned
6
Development of Delhi, which included the lands of the
respondents, and the respondents were paid
compensation in accordance with the Awards. The
Government thereafter invited applications for allotment
of alternative plots under the 1961 Scheme and the
respondents applied for allotment of alternative plots in
their applications dated 07.11.1986. As the
applications submitted by the respondents lacked
material particulars and were not accompanied with the
relevant documents, the respondents were intimated to
furnish material particulars and the relevant documents
including the sale deeds by which they had purchased
the land. The respondents furnished the particulars
and documents and on scrutiny, it was found that the
respondents had purchased the land in the years 1982
and 1983. The applications of the respondents were
rejected by communications dated 30.09.1991 as they
had purchased the lands within five years of the date of
the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, i.e. 22.01.1984.
7
6. Aggrieved, the respondents filed Civil Writ Petition
Nos.2147 of 1992 and 2148 of 1992 in the High Court
and contended that the 1961 Scheme had been
incorporated in the Delhi Development Authority
(Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (for short
`the Nazul Land Rules’), which are statutory in character
and these rules could not be amended by an
administrative order dated 03.04.1986. The High Court
accepted the contention of the petitioner and held in the
impugned order that Nazul Land Rules had been made
by the Central Government under clause (j) of sub-
section (2) of Section 56 read with sub-section (3) of
Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short
`the Act’) and could be amended only in the manner
prescribed under Section 56 read with Section 22 of the
Act and by an administrative order a further condition
could not be stipulated under Rule 6 of the Nazul Land
Rules. The High Court accordingly set aside the
communications dated 30.09.1991 rejecting the
applications of the respondents for alternative plots
8
and remitted the matter to the appellants to consider the
request of the respondents in the light of the provisions
contained in the Nazul Land Rules and made it clear that
the appellants would be permitted to take into
consideration the nature of the policy as well as the
condition stipulated in the 1961 Scheme as explained in
the Full Bench judgment of the High Court in Ramanand
v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 1994 Delhi 29].
7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant before us is that the view taken by the
High Court that the 1961 Scheme could not have been
amended by the administrative order dated 03.04.1986
was not correct. Learned counsel for the respondents,
on the other hand, supported the impugned order of the
High Court.
8. Rules 4 and 6 of the Nazul Land Rules, which are
relevant for deciding the issue raised in this appeal, are
extracted hereinbelow:
“4. Persons to whom Nazul land may be
allotted.-(1) The Authority may, in conformity
with the plans, and subject to the other
9
provisions of these rules, allot Nazul land to
individuals, [body of persons, firms,
companies], public and private institutions,
co-operative house building societies, other co-
operative societies of individuals, cooperative
societies of industrialists and to the
departments of the Central Government, State
Governments and the Union territories.
(2) The Authority shall, in conformity with
plans and subject to the provisions of these
rules, dispose the Nazul land by auction to the
following institutions :
(a) hospitals;
(b) dispensaries;
(c) nursing homes;
(d) higher or technical education institutions;
(e) community halls;
(f) clubs;
(g) schools:
Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall
affect the allotment of land to the Central
Government, State Government, Union
territory, local body, autonomous bodies or
organisations owned by the Central
Government.”
“6. Allotment of Nazul land at pre-
determined rates.– Subject to the other
provisions of these rules, the Authority shall
allot Nazul land at the pre-determined rates in
the following cases, namely:-
(i) to individuals whose land has been acquired
for planned development of Delhi after the 1st
day of January,1961, and which forms part of
Nazul land:
10
Provided that if an individual is to be allotted a
residential plot, the size of such plot may be
determined by the Administrator after taking
into consideration the area and the value of the
land acquired from him and the location and
the value of the plot to be allotted;
(ii) to individuals in the low income group or
the middle income group other than specified
in clause (i) —
(a) who are tenants in a building in any
area in respect of which a slum
clearance order is made under the
Slum Areas Act;
(b) who, in any slum area or the other
congested area, own any plot of land
measuring less than 67 square metres
or own any building in any slum area
or other congested area;
(iii) to individuals, other than those specified in
clauses (i) and (ii), who are in the low income
group or the middle income group, by draw of
lots to be conducted under the supervision of
the Land Allotment Advisory Committee;
(iv) to individuals belonging to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes or who are
widows of defence personnel killed in action, or
ex-servicemen, physically handicapped
individuals subject to the provisions of rule 13;
(v) to industrialists or owners and occupiers of
warehouses who are required to shift their
industries and warehouses from non-
conforming areas to conforming area under the
11
Master Plan, or whose land is acquired or is
proposed to be acquired under the Act:
Provided that the size of such industrial plot
shall be determined with reference to the
requirement of the industry or warehouses set
up or to be set up in accordance with the
plants and such industrialists and owners of
warehouses have the capacity to establish and
run such industries or warehouses and on the
condition that the land allotted at pre-
determined rates shall not, in any case, exceed
the size of the land which has been, if any,
acquired from such industrialist or owners and
occupiers of warehouses and which form part
of Nazul land:
Provided further that in making such
allotment, the Authority shall be advised by the
Land Allotment Advisory Committee;
(vi) to co-operative group housing societies, co-
operative housing societies, consumer co-
operative societies and co-operative societies of
industrialists on “first come first served basis.”
9. It will be clear from sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the
Nazul Land Rules that the Authority may, in conformity
with the plans, and subject to the other provisions of
these rules, allot Nazul land to individuals and other
categories of persons. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 further
provides that the Authority shall in conformity with
12
plans and subject to the rules dispose the Nazul Land
by auction to the categories of institutions named in
clauses (a) to (g) in sub-rule 2 of Rule 4. The Full Bench
of the High Court has held in the case of Ramanand v.
Union of India & Ors. (supra) that Rule 4 requires that
the allotment of land shall be made in conformity with
the plans and `plans’ means the Master Plan and the
Zonal Development Plan for a zone. Thus, there is
nothing in Rule 4 which envisages allotment of Nazul
land to different category of persons to indicate that the
1961 Scheme has been incorporated in Rule 4. The
Full Bench of the High Court has also held in the
aforesaid decision that the word `may’ in sub-rule (1) of
Rule 4 cannot be construed as `shall’ and discretion has
been vested in the Authority to allot land to the
categories of persons mentioned in the sub-rule.
10. Rule 6 is titled “Allotment of Nazul land at pre-
determined rates” and it provides that subject to the
other provisions of the rules, the Authority shall allot
Nazul land at the pre-determined rates in the cases
13
enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv) and clause (i) of Rule 6
covers cases of individuals whose land has been
acquired for planned development of Delhi after the 1st
day of January, 1961 and which forms part of Nazul
land. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 6, therefore, only provides
that when the Authority decides to allot land to any
individual under the 1961 Scheme, it shall allot at the
predetermined rates.
11. This is the view that the Full Bench of the Delhi
High Court has taken in Ramanand v. Union of India &
Ors. (supra). The relevant portion of the Full Bench
judgment is quoted hereunder:
“Rule 6, in reality, controls the rates of
premium chargeable only in those cases
where land is allotted to the persons
mentioned therein. In other cases, the rules
provide for sale of land at the market price
determined by the highest bid on public
auction of land.”
Thus, according to the Full Bench of the High Court in
Ramanand v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) Rule 6
controls the rates of premium chargeable only in those
14
cases where land is allotted to the persons mentioned
therein and in other cases, the rules provide for sale of
land at the market price determined by the highest bid
on public auction of land.
12. We are therefore of the considered opinion that Rule
6(1) of the Nazul Land Rules is not really a rule which
incorporates the 1961 Scheme, but it only provides that
if the Authority decides to allot Nazul land to the
individuals eligible under the 1961 Scheme, then Nazul
land shall be allotted at pre-determined rates and not at
the rates determined in a public auction. The High
Court has taken an erroneous view in the impugned
order that Rule 6 of the Nazul Land Rules, which was a
statutory rule, laid down conditions for allotment of land
under the 1961 Scheme and the conditions for allotment
of land under the 1961 Scheme could therefore be
amended by only statutory rules under Section 56 read
with Section 22 of the Act. In our considered opinion,
Rule 6 of the Nazul Law Rules did not stipulate the
15
conditions for allotment under the 1961 Scheme and the
1961 Scheme being an administrative scheme could be
amended without a statutory rule made under Section
56 read with Section 22 of the Act.
13. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the
impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as
to costs.
……………………..J.
(R. V.
Raveendran)
……………………..J.
(A. K.
Patnaik)
New Delhi,
October 11, 2011.
