{"id":243512,"date":"1987-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987"},"modified":"2018-02-07T16:33:39","modified_gmt":"2018-02-07T11:03:39","slug":"kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987","title":{"rendered":"Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … vs New Okhla Industrial Development … on 28 October, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … vs New Okhla Industrial Development … on 28 October, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR, 1\t\t 1988 SCR (1) 662<\/div>\n
Author: B Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, B.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD. &ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/10\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR    1\t\t  1988 SCR  (1) 662\n 1988 SCC  (1)\t63\t  JT 1987 (4)\t184\n 1987 SCALE  (2)856\n\n\nACT:\n     U.P. Industrial  Development Act,\t1976: Secs.  3, 6, 8\nand 12-New okhla Industrial Development Area-Development of-\nAcquisition of\tlands owned  by Group Housing Societies-G.O.\ndated 9.4.1980-Nature  and effect  of-Lands  of\t Cooperative\nHouse Building\tSocieties not  to be acquired 'as far as may\nbe'-Whether directory\/mandatory-Building  Bye-Laws  1977-New\nOkhla Industrial Development Authority Refusal of permission\nfor development of land of Housing Society-Validity of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     The U.P.  Industrial Development  Act, 1976 was enacted\nto  provide   for  the\tconstitution  of  an  Authority\t for\ndevelopment of\tcertain areas  in the  State into industrial\nand urban  township. By\t a notification\t dated 17.4.1976 the\n\"New Okhla  Industrial Development Authority was established\nand \"New Okhla Industrial Development Area\" was declared.\n     New Okhla\tIndustrial Development\tAuthority  made\t the\nBuilding bye-laws,  1977, and the Authority in 1978 prepared\na plan wherein the land of the Society was earmarked as 'low\ndensity residential area'.\n     The appellant-Society submitted an application on March\n14, 1978  with a plan for approval and permission to develop\nits land.  By letters  dated 12th  June\/3rd July,  1978\t and\n22.11.1978, Respondent\tNo. 1  intimated the appellants that\npermission had\tbeen refused for development of the land and\nthat the entire land of the Society had not been acquired.\n     The appellants  filed a  writ petition  before the High\nCourt, assailing  refusal of  permission  without  recording\nproper and  germane reasons,  and praying  for direction  to\nrespondents not\t to  acquire  the  lands  belonging  to\t the\nSociety, and  to permit its development according to the lay\nout plan submitted by it.\n563\n     The High  Court granted  an interim  order of  stay  of\ndispossession.\n     During the\t pendency of  the writ petition a G.O. dated\n9.4.1980 was  issued  intimating  that\tthe  Government\t had\ndecided that  the lands acquired by those Co-operative House\nBuilding Societies, which satisfied the conditions laid down\ntherein should not be acquired as far as may be.\n     The appellants'  representation for  reconsideration of\nthe matter  in the  light of  the above Government order was\nrejected, on  the ground that the G.O. was an administrative\ninstruction and\t could not  be construed  as mandatory, that\nthe Government's  power to  acquire land for public purposes\nunder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not prohibited, and\nthat the object of the Act, to ensure planned development of\nthe  area   for\t industrial  and  urban\t township  would  be\nfrustrated,  if\t  individual  societies\t were  permitted  to\ndevelop their lands themselves.\n     The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that\nthe Government's  orders dated\tJuly 27,  1967 and  April 9,\n1980, having  not mentioned the Chief Executive officer, New\nOkhla Industrial Development Authority, the intention of the\nState Government was to exclude the Chief Executive officer,\nNew  Okhla   Industrial\t Development   Authority  from\t its\napplication,  that   on\t the  basis  of\t these\tG.  Os.\t the\nappellants could not claim exemption from acquisition by New\nOkhla Industrial  Development Authority under the provisions\nof U.P. Act VI, 1976.\n     Aggrieved\tby   the  order\t  of  the  High\t Court,\t the\nappellants filed a special leave petition before this Court,\nand also  a writ  petition challenging\tthe validity  of the\nchange made  by New  Okhla Industrial  Development Authority\nduring the  pendency of the Writ Petition in the Master Plan\nby showing the appellant's land as Regional Park.\n     Dismissing the  appeal by\tspecial leave,\tand the writ\npetition,\n^\n     HELD: 1.1 The sole object of the 1976 Act is to develop\ncertain\t areas\tin  the\t State\tinto  industrial  and  urban\ntownship in a planned way by the Authority constituted under\nthe Act\t and as\t such the  cooperative societies  cannot  be\npermitted to develop their lands for the purpose of building\nhouses haphazardly. This will frustrate the entire object of\nthe Act. The Government has power to acquire land for public\npurposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [669B-D]\n664\n     1.2 The  application of  the appellant-Society was duly\nconsidered and\tthe Authority  refused permission  on  their\napplication for relevant and cogent reasons. [670B]\n     1.3 The  G.O. dated  9.4.1980 merely  states  that\t the\nlands of Co-operative House Building Societies are not to be\nacquired \"as  far as  may  be\".\t Hence\tthe  order  is\tonly\ndirectionary and  cannot  be  considered  to  be  mandatory.\nMoreover, this\torder is  not a\t statutory  one,  being\t not\nissued under  any statutory  provision. It  is\tat  best  an\nadministrative instruction.  It does  not create  an express\nbar on\tthe power  of the Government to acquire the land for\npublic purposes under the Land Acquisition Act. [669A-B]\n     1.4 The Authority, which has been given the power under\nthe Statute  to prepare\t the  development  plan\t demarcating\ntherein\t the  sites  to\t be  developed\tfor  development  of\nindustrial,  residential  and  other  purposes\tfor  planned\ndevelopment of\tthe  industrial\t and  urban  townships,\t has\nnecessarily the\t implied power\tto alter  or modify the Plan\nshowing the  land meant\t for the  particular user. Change of\nuser of\t the land  by altering\tthe plan  is  not  arbitrary\nbecause it  is for  the Authority to determine and demarcate\nthe site  to be\t developed and used for a particular purpose\nto secure  planned development\tof the\tindustrial township.\nThe plan  was based  on the  recommendations of\t the  Expert\nCommittee which\t were approved\tby the State Government. The\nalteration in  the user of appellant's land does not lead to\nany hostile descrimination. [670E-H]\n     1.5 A proposal for acquisition of 325-353 acres of land\nin the\tvillage in  which the  appellant Society's  land  is\nsituated was  sent to  the Collector,  who agreed  to it and\nafter approval\tfrom Government,  sent a  notification under\nsection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to Government Press\nfor publication.  A  Draft  for\t Rs.  70  lakhs,  being\t the\napproximate amount  of 20% of compensation, has been sent to\nCollector by  the Authority. In the circumstances, it cannot\nbe said\t that no  steps have  been taken  by the  New  Okhla\nIndustrial Development\tAuthority to  acquire the  Society's\nland. The  question of allotment of alternative sites to the\nmembers of  the society\t does not  arise as the lands of the\nsociety have not yet been acquired. [671C-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL\/CIVlL APPELLATE  JURlSDlCTION:  Writ  Petition
\nNo. 557 of 1983 etc.
\n\t(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
\n665<\/span>
\n     V.M. Tarkunde,  A.K. Sen, S. Markandeya and N.D.B. Raju
\nfor the Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     S.N. Kacker,  Raju Ramachandran and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit
\nfor the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     B.C. RAY,\tJ. This\t civil appeal  by special  leave  is
\ndirected against  the judgment\tand  order  passed  by\tHigh
\nCourt, Allahabad  dismissing the  writ petition filed by the
\nCo-operative Housing  Society formed  as Kendriya Karamchari
\nSahkari\t Grih\tNirman\tSamiti\t Ltd.  and   its   President
\nchallenging the\t order of  refusal of  permission to the lay
\nout plan  submitted by\tthem to\t the New  Okhla\t Development
\nAuthority to  be hereinafter  referred in brief as NOIDA and
\nalso refusing  to exempt  the lands belonging to the Society
\nfalling within NOIDA Area from acquisition. The facts giving
\nrise to this appeal are shortly as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     The U.P.  Industrial Development  Act, 1976 was enacted
\n     with the  object to  provide for the constitution of an
\n     Authority for development of certain areas in the State
\n     into industrial  and urban township. This Act came into
\n     operation from April 16. 1976. A notification No. 4157-
\n     HX\/XVIII-II dated\t17.4.1976 was published constituting
\n     under  Section  3\tof  the\t said  Act  the\t “New  Okhla
\n     Industrial\t Development  Authority”  and  declared\t the
\n     industrial development  area comprising  of 37 villages
\n     mentioned in  the schedule\t to be “New Okhla Industrial
\n     Development Area”.\t In the\t said schedule\titem No.  16
\n     referred  to   village  Chhalera\tBangar\twherein\t the
\n     Society’s lands  are situated. Section 6(2) of the said
\n     Act empowers  NOIDA to  acquire land  in the industrial
\n     development  area\t either\t by   agreement\t or  through
\n     proceedings under\tthe Land  Acquisition Act,  1894. It
\n     also confers  powers on the Authority to prepare a plan
\n     for the  development of industrial development area and
\n     to lay  down the purpose for which a particular site on
\n     plot of  land shall  be  used  namely  for\t industrial.
\n     commercial\t or   residential  purpose   or\t any   other
\n     specified purpose\tin the area. Section 8 confers power
\n     on the  Authority to  issue directions  in\t respect  to
\n     matters specified therein for erection of building. The
\n     NOIDA made certain directions under the nomenclature of
\n     Building bye-laws, 1977. The Authority in 1978 prepared
\n     a plan wherein the land of the Society was earmarked as
\n     ‘low density residential area’. The ap-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
666<\/span><\/p>\n
     pellant society  submitted an  application on March 14,
\n     1978 with\tplan for  approval and permission to develop
\n     the land  to NOIDA in accordance with the provisions of
\n     Building Bye-laws.\t The Society  on June  14, 1978\t has
\n     sent a  letter to\tNOIDA intimating  that no  order was
\n     made in  respect of  the development  plan submitted by
\n     them till\tthat date  and if  no order  is made  by the
\n     Authority within a period of 20 days of this letter the
\n     Authority\tshall\tbe  deemed  to\thave  permitted\t the
\n     proposed work in accordance with Bye-law No. 8.2 framed
\n     by the  Authority. On  12th  June\/3rd  July,  1978\t the
\n     respondent No.  1, the  Chief Executive  officer, NOIDA
\n     intimated the appellant No. 2, President of the Society
\n     that permission has been refused for development of the
\n     land by  the Society according to the plan submitted as
\n     it is the function of the Authority to prepare plan for
\n     development of  its  industrial  development  area,  to
\n     demarcate and  develop sites for industrial, commercial
\n     and residential  purposes according  to the plan and to
\n     provide amenities for planned development of the area.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On 22.11.1978  NOIDA  replied  to\tthe  letter  of\t the
\nappellants dated  19.11.1978 stating that the entire land of
\nthe Society  has not  been acquired. The area falling within
\nthe  urbanised\tlimits\tis  to\tbe  acquired  to  check\t the
\nunauthorised development  on either side of the DSC road and
\nto have land for widening of the DSC. For these\t reasons, it
\nis not possible to approve the lay out plan submitted by the
\nappellant society.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  an April 28, 1979 filed a writ petition
\nbefore the  High Court,\t Allahabad assailing  the refusal of
\npermission  as\tcontained  in  letters\tdated  3.7.1978\t and
\n22.11.1978 without  recording proper and germane reasons and
\npraying for  a writ  or order or direction quashing the said
\nletters and  for a  suitable  writ  or\torder  or  direction
\ncommanding  the\t  respondents  not   to\t acquire  the  lands
\nbelonging to the Society. The petitioners further prayed for
\nissue  of  a  writ  or\torder  or  direction  directing\t the
\nrespondent No. 1, NOIDA to permit the Society to develop its
\nland according to lay out plan submitted by it.\n<\/p>\n
     On 3.7.1979, the High Court granted an interim order of
\nstay of\t dispossession. By  order dated 23.8.1979, the Court
\ndirected that  the said\t interim order\twould continue until
\nfurther orders.\n<\/p>\n
     During the\t pendency of  the writ petition the G.O. No.
\n1634\/37-2-8a29\tH.B.\/79\t  dated\t 9.4.1980  has\tbeen  issued
\nintimating the authorities
\n667<\/span>
\nmentioned therein  that the  Government after  reconsidering
\nthe question of acquisition of the lands acquired by the Co-
\noperative House\t Building Societies  has decided  that it is
\nnot desirable  that the\t lands of  such\t Co-operative  House
\nBuilding Societies  are acquired  by the  U.P.\tHousing\t and
\nDevelopment Board,  Development Authorities etc. It has also
\nbeen stated  therein that  keeping in view the above factors
\nthe lands  of the  Co-operative House Building Societies who
\nsatisfy the  conditions laid  down  therein  should  not  be
\nacquired  as   far  as\t may  be.   The\t petitioner  made  a
\nrepresentation to the Chief Executive officer, NOIDA to take
\ninto  consideration   the  above  government  order  and  to
\nsanction the  plan for\tdevelopment  submitted\tby  them.  A
\nsupplementary affidavit\t has also  been filed  in  the\twrit
\npetition. The  High Court  on 22.12.1980  observed that\t the
\nrespondent was\texpected to  give his  detailed reasons\t for
\nrefusal of  permission\tto  the\t application  filed  by\t the
\nSociety within a month or so.\n<\/p>\n
     Pursuant to  the above  order the\tChairman  and  Chief
\nExecutive officer,  NOIDA by  its letter  dated\t 23.  1.1981
\nintimated the  President of  the Society  that\tit  was\t not
\npossible to  sanction the  Society’s  lay  out\tplan.  NOIDA
\npublished a notification in Newspapers including “Nav Bharat
\nTimes” in its issue dated June 4, 1980 stating that there is
\ntotal prohibition  of sale  or purchase\t of land acquired in
\nfavour\tof  NOIDA  and\tany  construction  work\t is  totally
\nprohibited. It\twas further  mentioned that  in the notified
\narea the  building construction\t must be  in accordance with
\nthe rules  made and  directions\t issued\t by  NOIDA  and\t not
\notherwise.\n<\/p>\n
     On\t August\t 13,  1981,  NOIDA  sent  a  letter  to\t the
\nPresident of the petitioner Society stating that the o dated
\n9.4.1980 is  an administrative\tinstruction and it cannot be
\nconstrued as  mandatory. Upon  its basis  it cannot  be said
\nthat the  Government’s power  to  acquire  land\t for  public
\npurposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is prohibited.
\nThe object  of the  Act is  to ensure planned development of
\nthe Area  for industrial  and urban  township. If individual
\nsocieties are  permitted to  develop their  lands themselves
\nthere shall  be chances\t of haphazard growth in the area and
\nit will\t not be\t possible to  ensure a proper industrial and
\nurban township\tin the different sectors according to Master
\nPlan.  For  these  reasons,  it\t is  not  possible  for\t the
\nAuthority to  permit the  Society to  develop its  land\t for
\nresidential purposes.  The application\thas therefore,\tbeen
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
     After hearing  the parties\t the said  writ petition was
\ndismissed with\tcosts by  the High  Court, Allahabad holding
\ninter alia that the H
\n668<\/span>
\nGovernment orders  dated July  27, 1967\t and April  9,\t1980
\nhaving not mentioned the Chief Executive officer, NOIDA, the
\nintention of  the State\t Government was to exclude the Chief
\nExecutive officer,  NOIDA from\tits application, that on the
\nbasis  of  these  G.Os.\t the  petitioners  could  not  claim
\nexemption of  their land from acquisition by NOIDA under the
\nprovisions of  U.P. Act\t VI of 1976, that the permission was
\nclearly refused\t by NOIDA  to  the  plan  submitted  by\t the
\npetitioner with his application for permission and there was
\nno scope for deemed sanction. It was further held that there
\nwas no promissory estoppel.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  feeling aggrieved\tby this judgment and
\norder preferred the instant application for special leave to
\nappeal before  this Court.  During the\tpendency of the writ
\npetition before\t the High  Court NOIDA\tmade a change in the
\nMaster Plan  by showing\t the area in which petitioner’s land
\nis situated  as agricultural  land i.e.\t Regional Park.\t The
\nappellants filed  a writ  petition No.\t557 of\t1983 in this
\nCourt challenging the validity of the plan and for a writ or
\norder or direction for quashing the revised “Master Plan”.\n<\/p>\n
     From the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for
\nthe parties  the following points arise for consideration of
\nthis Court:-\n<\/p>\n
     The first\tpoint urged  before this  Court is  that the
\nG.O. dated  July 27,  1967 and the G.O. dated 9.4.1980 which
\nwas in\tcontinuation of\t the earlier  G.O.  dated  27.7.1967
\nimposes a  ban on  NOIDA to  acquire the  land\tof  the\t Co-
\noperative  House   Building  Societies\t who   satisfy\t the
\nconditions mentioned in the G.O. dated 9.4.1980. It has been
\nsubmitted that\tunder section  12 of  the said Act No. IV of
\n1976, the  provisions of  certain sections including Section
\n41 of  the U.P.\t Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 as
\nre-enacted and\tmodified shall mutatis mutandis apply to the
\nAuthority. Clause (c) of Section 12 specifically states that
\nany reference to the Vice-Chairman of the Authority shall be
\ndeemed to  refer to  the  Chief\t Executive  officer  of\t the
\nAuthority. The said Government order will apply to NOIDA and
\nthe lands  of the  appellant society which is a co-operative
\nhouse building\tsociety, cannot\t be acquired  in view of the
\nsaid Government\t orders. This  contention is not sustainable
\nfor the\t reasons stated\t hereinafter. Under.Section 12(c) of
\nthe said  Act the  Government order  is to be deemed to have
\nbeen addressed\tto the Chief Executive officer, NOIDA as the
\nsame  was   addressed  to   all\t Vice-Chairmen,\t Development
\nAuthorities, U.P.  Section 41  enjoins\tthe  Authorities  to
\ncomply with  the  directions  contained\t in  the  Government
\norder. The
\n669<\/span>
\nG.O. dated  9.4.1980 merely  states that  the lands  of\t Co-
\noperative House\t Building Societies  are not  to be acquired
\n“as  far  as  may  be”.\t This  Government  order  cannot  be
\nconsidered to  be mandatory  but directory  in as much as it
\nmerely says  that the  lands of\t co-operative house building
\nsocieties should  not be acquired as far as may be. Moreover
\nthis order is not a statutory one being not issued under any
\nstatutory  provision.\tIt  is\tat  best  an  administrative
\ninstruction. The  contention  that  this  order\t creates  an
\nexpress bar  on the power of the Government to acquire lands
\nof co-operative\t house building\t societies  is\twithout\t any
\nsubstance. The\tsole object  of the  1976 Act  is to develop
\ncertain\t areas\tin  the\t State\tinto  industrial  and  urban
\ntownship in a planned way by the Authority constituted under
\nthe Act\t and as\t such the  co-operative societies  cannot be
\npermitted to develop their lands for the purpose of building
\nhouses haphazardly. This will frustrate the entire object of
\nthe Act.  The contention that the lands of the societies are
\nexempted from  acquisition cannot  be sustained being devoid
\nof any\tmerit. The  Government has power to acquire land for
\npublic purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.\n<\/p>\n
     It has  been urged\t that in accordance with bye-law 5.2
\nframed by the Authority under Section 8 of the said Act, the
\nappellant society submitted an application on March 14, 1978
\nfor development\t of their  land to  the Authority  to accord
\nsanction to  the lay  out plan\tand to permit the Society to
\ndevelop\t the   land.  As   no  order  was  communicated\t the
\nappellants sent\t a  notice  to\tthe  Authority\tdrawing\t the
\nattention of  the Authority that if no order was made within
\n20 days of this letter then the Authority would be deemed to
\nhave permitted\tthe proposed  work. This  letter  was  dated
\n14.6.1978 and  the Authority  by its  letter dated  3.7.1978
\nintimated the  appellant society  that since  NOIDA has been
\nempowered to  prepare a\t plan for planned development of its
\nindustrial  development\t  area\tby   demarcating  sites\t for
\nindustrial, commercial and residential purposes according to
\nplan and  to provide  for infrastructures for these purposes
\nto secure  planned development, permission cannot be granted
\nto the\tapplication for\t development  of  the  area  by\t the
\nsociety.  The  Deputy  Chief  Executive\t officer  also\tsent
\nanother letter\tto the\tPresident of  the Society  on 22.11.
\n1978 intimating\t that the  Society had already been informed
\nthat the case submitted by it for sanction of the scheme for
\ndevelopment of\tland in\t village Challera  Bangar cannot  be
\nentertained. Again  pursuant to\t the order  of court made in
\nwrit petition  No. 4220 of 1979, the respondent Authority by
\nletter dated  August 13,  1981\tintimated  the\tSociety\t the
\ndetailed reasons  for refusal  of  permission  to  the\tplan
\nsubmitted by the appellant society to develop its land as it
\nwill frustrate planned development
\n670<\/span>
\nof the industrial development area into industrial and urban
\ntownships. The\tcontention  of\tthe  appellants\t that  their
\napplication for\t permission to\tdevelop has been rejected on
\nextraneous consideration  and not for germane reasons is not
\nat all\ttenable. The application was duly considered and the
\nAuthority  refused   permission\t on  their  application\t for
\nrelevant and cogent reasons.\n<\/p>\n
     It has been contended that in the first Master Plan the
\nlands of  the appellant’s  society were shown to be situated
\nin low\tdensity residential area. This Plan has been altered
\nunilaterally by\t showing it as agricultural land. Thereafter
\nthis land  was shown as Regional Park in the Master Plan. It
\nhas been  submitted that  this alteration or modification in
\nthe  Plan   has\t been\tmade  with  a  view  to\t defeat\t the
\npetitioners’  claim  for  immunity  from  acquisition.\tThis
\nalteration  in\t the  Plan  is\tarbitrary  in  as  much\t the
\nappellants have\t not been  given  any  opportunity  to\tfile
\nobjections against  such alteration.  In no  other area\t the
\nNOIDA Authority\t has altered  its plan.\t The appellants have
\nbeen singled  out for  hostile\tdiscrimination\tcontrary  to
\nArticle 14  of the  Constitution. Under\t Section 6(2) of the
\nAct the\t Authority has to prepare a plan for the development
\nof the\tindustrial development\tarea and  to  demarcate\t and
\ndevelop sites  for industrial,\tcommercial  and\t residential
\npurposes, to  lay down\tthe purpose  for which\ta particular
\nsite or\t plot of  land shall  be used namely for industrial,
\ncommercial and\tresidential purpose  or any  other specified
\npurpose in  such  area.\t The  Authority\t prepared  the\tPlan
\nshowing\t therein   the\tsites\tfor  residential  and  other
\npurposes. The Authority which has been given the power under
\nthe Statute  to prepare\t the  development  plan\t demarcating
\ntherein\t the  sites  to\t be  developed\tfor  development  of
\nindustrial, residential\t and other  purposes for the planned
\ndevelopment  of\t the  industrial  and  urban  townships\t has
\nnecessarily the\t implied power\tto alter  or modify the Plan
\nshowing\t the   land  meant  for\t the  particular  user.\t The
\nsubmission that\t the change  of user of the land by altering
\nthe plan is arbitrary is without any substance in as much as
\nit is  for the\tAuthority to  determine and to demarcate the
\nsite to\t be developed  and used\t for a particular purpose to
\nsecure planned\tdevelopment of\tthe industrial\ttownship. It
\nappears from  the counter  affidavit filed  on behalf of the
\nrespondents  to\t  the  writ   petition\tthat  the  Plan\t was
\nformulated and it was approved by the Authority in 1979. The
\nPlan  was   based  on  the  recommendations  of\t the  Expert
\nCommittee and the recommendations were approved by the State
\nGovernment. The other submission that this alteration in the
\nuser  of   appellants’\tland   in  Plan\t  leads\t to  hostile
\ndiscrimination is also without any substance as we have held
\nherein before  that the\t G.O. dated 9.4.1980 does not in any
\nway create any
\n671<\/span>
\nembargo on  the power  of the Government to acquire the land
\nfor public purposes under the Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It has  been submitted  in\t this  connection  that\t the
\nAuthority (NOIDA)  has not  taken any steps to acquire their
\nland and  also has  not taken  any steps  to  provide  their
\nmembers with alternative sites. This submission also has got
\nno merit  in as much as the appellants filed a writ petition
\nbefore the  High Court\ton April 28, 1979 praying for a writ
\nor order  or direction\tcommanding the\trespondents  not  to
\nacquire the land belonging to them. An interim order of stay
\nwas obtained  from the\tCourt  and  it\tcontinued  till\t the
\ndismissal of  writ petition. A special leave petition out of
\nwhich this appeal arises has been filed and an order of stay
\nof dispossession has been obtained from this Court. The stay
\nis continuing. It is pertinent to mention in this connection
\nthat a\tproposal for acquisition of 325.353 acres of land in
\nvillage Challera  Bangar, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District
\nGaziabad was  sent by  NOIDA to\t the Collector,\t Gaziabad on
\n11.2.1985. The Collector after examining the proposal agreed
\nto  the\t  same\tand  requested\tthe  Government,  Industries
\nDepartment to  issue notification under Sections 4, 5 and 17
\nof Land\t Acquisition Act, 1894. The Government however, felt
\nthat there  was no  necessity to  issue\t notification  under
\nSection 17  of\tthe  Land  Acquisition\tAct  .\tAccordingly,
\nnotification under  section 4(1)  was prepared\tand sent  to
\nGovernment Press,  Lucknow on  11.3.1987. The  Authority has
\nsent a\tsum of\tRs. 70 lakhs by draft to the Collector being
\n20% of the approximate amount of compensation. On 3 1.7.1987
\nNOIDA sent  a letter  requesting  the  Government  Press  to
\nexpedite  publication\tof  Notification   issued   by\t the
\nCollector, Gaziabad.  This  is\tevident\t from  the  counter-
\naffidavit of  Tehsildar, Udai  Singh. In these circumstances
\nit is futile to contend before this Court that no steps have
\nbeen  taken  by\t NOIDA\tto  acquire  appellants’  land.\t The
\nquestion of allotment of alternative sites to the members of
\nthe Society  does not arise as their lands have not yet been
\nacquired.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  reasons aforesaid,  the appeal  and  the\twrit
\npetition are dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.P.V.\t\t\t\tAppeal & Petition dismissed.\n672<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … vs New Okhla Industrial Development … on 28 October, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR, 1 1988 SCR (1) 662 Author: B Ray Bench: Ray, B.C. (J) PETITIONER: KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD. &ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. DATE OF […]<\/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-243512","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... vs New Okhla Industrial Development ... on 28 October, 1987 - 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\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... vs New Okhla Industrial Development ... on 28 October, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987\" \/>\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=\"1987-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-07T11:03:39+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … vs New Okhla Industrial Development … on 28 October, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-07T11:03:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987\"},\"wordCount\":2942,\"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\\\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987\",\"name\":\"Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... vs New Okhla Industrial Development ... on 28 October, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-07T11:03:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … vs New Okhla Industrial Development … on 28 October, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... vs New Okhla Industrial Development ... on 28 October, 1987 - 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\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... vs New Okhla Industrial Development ... on 28 October, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-07T11:03:39+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … vs New Okhla Industrial Development … on 28 October, 1987","datePublished":"1987-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-07T11:03:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987"},"wordCount":2942,"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\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987","name":"Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih ... vs New Okhla Industrial Development ... on 28 October, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-07T11:03:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-karamchari-sahkari-grih-vs-new-okhla-industrial-development-on-28-october-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih … vs New Okhla Industrial Development … on 28 October, 1987"}]},{"@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\/243512","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=243512"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243512\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}