{"id":232850,"date":"2006-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006"},"modified":"2016-07-28T08:51:42","modified_gmt":"2016-07-28T03:21:42","slug":"new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"New Okhla Industrial Development … vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … on 24 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
New Okhla Industrial Development … vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … on 24 April, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1569 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nNew Okhla Industrial Development Authority\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tChallenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment
\nrendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
\nallowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tAppellant – New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
\n(in short the ‘NOIDA’) was constituted under the provisions of
\nSection 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development
\nAct, 1976 (in short the ‘Act’).  The main object of the Act was
\nplanned development of an industrial development area.  For
\nthe said purpose State of Uttar Pradesh acquired lands falling
\nin various villages by invoking the provisions of the Land
\nAcquisition Act, 1894 (in short the ‘LA Act’)  by issuing various
\nnotifications. This Court in Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari
\nNirman Samiti Ltd. & Anr. v. The New Okhla Industrial
\nDevelopment Authority & Ors.  (AIR<\/a> 1988 SC 1) held that
\nlands belonging to cooperative societies are not exempt from
\nacquisition by the State for the purpose of planned
\ndevelopment of Noida area.  Since the land of a number of Co-
\noperative Societies were compulsorily acquired, a decision was
\ntaken by the NOIDA that land equivalent to 40% of the land
\nholding of such societies would be made available for
\nallotment to the members of the societies whose land was
\nacquired.  The respondent – society represented vide its letter
\ndated 30th April 1994 that it owned 292 bighas of land and on
\nthat basis moved for allotment of land for the benefit of its
\nmembers.  In response a letter dated 14.6.1994 was written by
\nNOIDA that the respondent’s request for allotment of
\nresidential plots is under consideration and as soon as the
\ndecision is taken necessary information shall be given.  By
\nletter dated 8.8.1994 appellant asked the respondent – society
\nto send a list of its members duly verified by the District
\nAssistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ghaziabad.  A list
\nwas sent  purportedly verified by the Assistant Registrar of
\nCooperative Societies.  Acting on the basis of representation
\nmade by the Society and believing the same to be correct,
\nappellant proceeded to allot land equivalent to 40% of 292
\nbighas.  The respondent wrote a letter dated 9.9.1994
\nindicating details of such 292 bighas.  In February and March,
\n1995 allotment letters were issued to individual members
\ntotaling 1754 for land measuring 3,23,650 sq.m.  In paragraph
\n21 of the allotment letter it was stipulated as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“21. CONSEQUENCES OF MIS-\n<\/p>\n
REPRESENTATION:\n<\/p>\n
If the allotment\/lease of the plot is
\nobtained by any misrepresentation,
\nsuppression of material fact, mis-statement of
\nfraud, allotment\/lease may be
\ncancelled\/determined and the possession of
\nthe plot and building thereon (if exists) may be
\nresumed by the Chief Executive Officer or his
\nduly authorized representative and the
\nallottee\/lessee will not be entitled to any
\ncompensation.  Entire money deposited will
\nalso be forfeited in favour of the authority.
\nBesides, Authority will be at liberty to initiate
\nlegal action against such allottee\/lessee.”\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly, payments in respect of such allotments to
\n1754 persons were accepted. Complaints were received from
\nvarious persons who alleged that they were in fact members of
\nthe respondent-society, but their names were not forwarded by
\nthe Society for allotment of plots.  In view of these complaints
\nand with a view and intent to check correctness of the
\nmembership list, appellant requested Secretary of the
\nrespondent-Society on 1.5.1996 to give the following details :\n<\/p>\n
1.\tYear-wise detailed information of members enrolled by
\nthe society;\n<\/p>\n
2.\tYear-wise membership fees deposited by the members
\nto obtain membership of the society and further year-
\nwise details regarding deposit of such an amount by
\nthe society.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tYear-wise details of pass book containing entries
\ndeposit of membership fees.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tDetails of cash book, balance sheet etc. from the
\ninception of the society till 1988.\n<\/p>\n
On 15.5.1996 President of the respondent-Society Sh.
\nBalbir Singh informed the appellant that he had asked the
\nSecretary to place relevant records before him. But no
\ndocuments were forwarded. Letter dated 1.5.1996 was
\nfollowed by another letter dated 21.6.1996 reiterating that if
\ndocuments asked for were not furnished, allotments would be
\ncancelled. Public notice was given on 22.6.1996 and
\n25.6.1996 as no documents were furnished.  On 26.7.1996
\nthe President of the respondent-Society requested grant of
\nfurther 15 days’ time to furnish the documents.  On 4.10.1996
\na letter was received from the office of the Governor, Uttar
\nPradesh along with complaints from various persons who
\nclaimed to be members of the respondent-Society and whose
\nnames were not forwarded by the respondent-society for
\nallotment of plots.  A list of membership of the respondent-
\nsociety duly authenticated by the Registrar, Uttar Pradesh
\nHousing and Development Board, Lucknow indicated that only
\n546 members were enrolled by the Society upto 27.4.1987.
\n\tName of many persons mentioned in this list and those
\nwho had sent complaints regarding exclusion were not found
\nin the list purported to have been verified by Sh. Balbir Singh,
\npresident of the respondent-Society, who had earlier claimed
\nto have verified the membership as Assistant Registrar-
\nCooperative societies.  In these circumstances an enquiry was
\nconducted by the Deputy Chief Executive officer of the
\nappellant.  In this enquiry on the basis of the information
\ncollected, award given by the Additional District Magistrate on
\n17.8.1996 and the report of the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad
\ndated 24.1.1997 it was revealed that the Society had made
\ngross misrepresentation that 292 bighas of land had been
\nacquired and a false claim for allotment of 40% of the said
\nareas was set up.  It was further revealed that Society had
\nreceived compensation for land acquisition in respect of only
\n34 bighas of land.  Interestingly 65 bighas of land recorded in
\nthe name of the Society had vested in the State Government in
\nterms of Section 154 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
\nand Land Reforms Act.  More curiously, in respect of 118
\nbighas of land from the remaining 192 bighas of land
\ncompensation had been taken by the farmers and not by the
\nrespondent-Society. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued
\non 8.7.1997 requiring the respondent specifically to furnish
\nthe following documents:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tYear-wise details of payments made for purchase of land
\nand concerned sale deeds.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tYear-wise details of receipt of compensation for the land.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tYear-wise detailed information of members enrolled by
\nthe society with their full particulars name, age,
\nparentage and address.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tYear-wise membership fees deposited by the members to
\nobtain membership of the society and further yearwise
\ndetails regarding deposit of such an amount by the
\nsociety.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tYear-wise details of pass book containing entries depot of
\nmembership fees.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tDetails of cash book, balance sheet etc. from the
\ninception of the society till 1988.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tCopies of proceedings of the Annual General Meeting for
\nthe each year since inception.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tList of original members, if any, submitted at the time of
\nregistration to the housing commissioner\/Registrar.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tAnnual audit report for each year of the society from the
\nbeginning.\n<\/p>\n
Thirty days’ time was given to furnish the document so
\nthat allotment to the extent of 40% of the land acquired from
\nthe society in case of its genuine members could be granted.
\nIt was clearly indicated that in case the details were not
\nfurnished, all the allotments made to the members of the
\nsociety would be cancelled and money deposited forfeited.
\nLegal proceedings were contemplated against office bearers of
\nthe society for playing fraud.\n<\/p>\n
In response, the respondent-Society furnished a list of
\nmembers enrolled between 1.4.1987 to 31.5.1987 and stated
\nthat the remaining documents would be sent soon. On
\n4.10.1997 the respondent-Society sent another letter
\nalongwith which another list of members enrolled between
\n1.6.1987 to 31.10.1987 was annexed.  Again time was asked
\nfor and assurance was given to furnish other documents.
\nDespite grant of opportunities and the assurances made,
\nnothing concrete was placed by the respondent-Society to
\nsubstantiate the genuine membership. In these circumstances
\ncancellation letter was issued on 5.5.1998 indicating that in
\nview of non-submission of relevant documents and the
\nmalpractice adopted, the allotments were cancelled.  Although
\naccording to the appellant, it was entitled to forfeit the amount
\nin deposit yet a decision was taken to refund the same to the
\nmembers who had earlier been allotted plots.\n<\/p>\n
 Questioning correctness of the cancellation, certain
\nmembers of the respondent-society filed a petition before the
\nMRTP Commission.  The Association was  titled as “Noida
\nSector 43 Allottees Welfare Association”.  Initially by order
\ndated 15.5.1988 MRTP Commission granted an order of status
\nquo.  Subsequently another petition was filed before the MRTP
\nCommission.  Counter Affidavit was filed by present appellant
\nbefore the Commission indicating as to how massive fraud
\nhave been practiced by the respondent.  A rejoinder was filed
\nby the appellant.  During pendency of the matter before the
\nCommission, a Writ Petition was filed on 19.11.2001 before
\nthe Allahabad High Court questioning the decision dated
\n5.5.1998.  On 15.1.2002 the petition before the Commission
\nwas withdrawn by the respondent.  In the writ petition counter
\naffidavit was filed.  Attention was drawn to order dated
\n7.3.2003 passed by this Court in I.A. No. 18 of 2002 in Civil
\nAppeal No. 5502 of 1983.  This court directed the NOIDA to
\ncomply with the direction dated 4.4.1991 and to develop and
\nbring before this court a housing scheme for 242 members of
\nthe U.P. Residents Society.  Rejoinder was filed on 20.7.2003.
\nThough appellant requested for time to file further affidavit
\nand documents prayer was not granted.  The High Court
\nreserved judgment on that date and by order dated 5.8.2003
\nthe writ petition was allowed.  The judgment is under
\nchallenge in this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellant inter alia submitted
\nthat the High Court entered into disputed questions of fact. It
\nwas specifically brought to the notice of the High Court that
\ndispute relating to 64 bighas of land was pending before the
\nBoard of Revenue and that in respect of 118 bighas of land
\ncompensation had been taken by the farmers and the factual
\nscenario clearly indicated as to how  fraud was practiced by
\nthe respondent-Society.  The High Court not only nullified the
\neffect of the proceedings before the Board of Revenue, but also
\ngave findings to the effect that fraud was committed by the
\nfarmers and also directed payment of interest.\tAccording to
\nlearned counsel principles of Promissory Estoppel had no
\napplication to the facts of the case, though the High Court
\nfounded its conclusions on those principles.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn reply, learned counsel for the respondent submitted
\nthat there was no dispute regarding membership which could
\nbe adjudicated by the appellant.  It was a matter for the Co-
\noperative Societies Authorities.  Even if it is accepted that
\nsome matters were pending before the Board of Revenue that
\narea can be at the most excluded. But denying entitlement of
\n40% on that ground is not proper.  Even if the farmers had
\ntaken the compensation, it is a matter between the society and
\nthe farmers and that had no relevance so far as the present
\ndispute is concerned.  The report of the Tehsildar clearly
\nindicated that 292 bighas of land had been acquired from the
\nsociety.\n<\/p>\n
Though it is claimed by the respondent that there was no
\ndispute that 292 bighas of land had been acquired by the
\nSociety, on verification of records the position appears to be
\nentirely different. It has been all through the stand of
\nappellant that the Society had misrepresented to be the owner
\nof 292 bighas of land.  This is a disputed question of title
\nwhich was to be established in an appropriate court of law and
\nthe writ petition was not the proper remedy.  Further as
\nrightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
\nHigh Court’s order practically renders the proceedings before
\nthe Board of Revenue redundant. Findings recorded about the
\nmerits of the proceedings before the Board of Revenue when
\nthe State was not a party in the writ petition is an
\nimpermissible course adopted by the High Court. Even
\notherwise, the finding that farmers have practiced fraud is
\nwithout any foundation since farmers were not parties in the
\nwrit petition.  The appellant’s effort was to verify  genuineness
\nof the members who were claimed by the Society to be its
\ngenuine members.  Interestingly at the initial stage the list was
\nverified by Sh. Balbir  Singh who undisputedly was President
\nof the respondent-Society.  In spite of several opportunities the
\ndetails regarding membership were not furnished.  Obviously
\nit cannot be said that the appellant was bound to allot land,
\neven if the membership was not established and it was
\nestablished that large number of people were not genuine
\nmembers. Allotment in the manner desired by the respondent-
\nSociety would be against the very purpose of allotment flowing
\nfrom the scheme in question.  In any event highly disputed
\nquestions of fact were involved. The High Court did not
\nexamine that issue in its proper perspective.  It only referred to
\nsome decisions which noted that the High Court is not
\ndeprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article
\n226 of the Constitution, merely because in considering the
\npetitioner’s right to relief, questions of fact may fall to be
\ndetermined.  These judgments have been read out of context.
\nIt is fairly well settled that disputed questions of fact should
\nnot be gone into by the High Court in writ proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
A High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to
\nentertain a petition merely because in considering petitioner’s
\nright to relief question of fact may fall to be determined as
\npointed out in Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee (AIR<\/a>
\n1970 SC 802). In a petition under  Article 226, the High Court
\nhas jurisdiction to try issues of law and fact. Where, however,
\nthe petition raises complex question of  fact, the Court should
\nnot entertain the petition. In Mahanta Moti Das v. S.P. Sahid
\n(AIR 1959 SC 942) the High Court refused to go into the
\nquestion as to whether Trusts were public or private trusts as
\nthe question had involved investigation of complicated facts
\nand recording of evidence. The view was upheld. Thus, if there
\nis a question on which there is a serious dispute which cannot
\nbe satisfactorily  decided without taking evidence, it should
\nnot be decided in a writ proceeding (See  Union of India v. T.R.
\nVerma, AIR<\/a> 1957 SC 882).  If disputed questions of fact arise
\nand the High Court is of the view that those may not be
\nappropriately tried in a writ petition, the High Court has
\njurisdiction to refuse to try those questions and relegate the
\nparty to his normal remedy to obtain redress in a suit.\n<\/p>\n
In a petition under Article 226, the High Court has
\njurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law.  When the
\npetition raises complex questions of fact which may, for their
\ndetermination, require oral evidence to be taken and on that
\naccount the High Court is of the view that the disputed
\nstatement may not be appropriately tried in a writ petition, the
\nHigh Court should ordinarily decline to try the petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, a High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to
\nentertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in
\nconsidering the petitioner’s right, question of fact may fall to
\nbe determined.  Ultimately, the question  is one of discretion
\nwhich is to be exercised in conformity with judicial principles.\n<\/p>\n
 The High Court entertained the writ petition on the
\nground that the present appellant by acting wholly arbitrarily
\nand illegally had discrimination against the writ petitioner.
\nThese conclusions were based on no material. On the
\ncontrary, the factual scenario as described above goes to show
\nthat the respondent-Society was not entitled to maintain a writ
\npetition.  Further there was no claim for interest made in the
\nwrit petition but the High Court granted interest.  Looked at
\nany angle the High Court’s order is clearly unsustainable and
\nis set aside.  The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 39842 of 2001 filed
\nbefore the High Court is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without
\nany order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India New Okhla Industrial Development … vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … on 24 April, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1569 of 2004 PETITIONER: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority RESPONDENT: Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNew Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... on 24 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... on 24 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-28T03:21:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"New Okhla Industrial Development … vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … on 24 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-28T03:21:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2620,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006\",\"name\":\"New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... on 24 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-28T03:21:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New Okhla Industrial Development … vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … on 24 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... on 24 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... on 24 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-28T03:21:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"New Okhla Industrial Development … vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … on 24 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-28T03:21:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006"},"wordCount":2620,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006","name":"New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... on 24 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-28T03:21:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-okhla-industrial-development-vs-kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-on-24-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New Okhla Industrial Development … vs Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … on 24 April, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=232850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}