- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Uttar Pradesh Reside... v. New Okhla Industrial...
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant is a registered housing co-operative society (“the society”) whose members—Central/State Government and public-sector employees—purchased about 72 acres of land in the villages of Chhalera Bangar and Suthari between 1973 and September 1975 for residential use.
After the enactment of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, the State Government created the New Okhla Industrial Development Area (NOIDA). On 30 April 1976 and 1 May 1976, the State issued notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Chhalera Bangar, followed by similar notifications on 1 June 1976 and 16 September 1976 for Suthari, declaring the land required for planned industrial development. The society’s land was included in these notifications.
Government correspondence (1979–1980) offered the society developed plots amounting to 35 % of its acquired land at an indicative price of Rs 130 per sq m, subject to deposit and a tripartite agreement. The society rejected the terms as arbitrary and filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6563 of 1980 in the Allahabad High Court challenging the acquisition and alleging mala fides. The High Court dismissed the petition on 6 May 1983, holding that (i) the acquisition notifications were valid, (ii) the society had no legal right to a particular land, and (iii) the price was not shown to be discriminatory.
The society obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, a series of interim orders (30 May 1983, 19 March 1984, 30 April 1984, 8 May 1985) recorded undertakings by NOIDA to consider allotment in Sectors 40, 41 and 42. Meanwhile, in a separate matter (Hiralal Chawla v. State of U.P., (1990) 2 SCC 149) the Court fixed terms for allotment of plots to similarly-situated societies at Rs 1000 per sq m.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the land-acquisition notifications issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could be quashed at the instance of the society more than three years after publication.
- Whether the society had a legal right to rehabilitation by allotment of developed plots in lieu of its acquired land and, if so, on what terms.
- Whether NOIDA’s refusal to extend the deposit deadline and its price fixation for developed plots were arbitrary or discriminatory.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant Society
- The acquisition and inclusion of its land were mala fide and should be set aside.
- NOIDA’s refusal to allot land on the original site, and its insistence on deposit/payment, were arbitrary and discriminatory.
- The price of Rs 130 per sq m originally demanded was excessive; the society sought parity with other societies.
Respondents (State of U.P. and NOIDA)
- The offer of developed plots was a concession, not a statutory entitlement; the society forfeited it by failing to deposit the required amount in time.
- No evidence showed any other party receiving land at a lower price; therefore, there was no discrimination.
- The acquisition was for a public purpose—planned industrial development—and was valid.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hiralal Chawla v. State of U.P., (1990) 2 SCC 149 | Framework for rehabilitative allotment to land-loser housing societies in NOIDA, including plot size, price (Rs 1000 per sq m) and development schedule. | The Court adopted the same terms for the present society, merging interim orders into a final order and setting aside the High Court judgment. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted a “consensus” between the parties at the hearing that the appeal should be resolved on the same terms as in Hiralal Chawla. It therefore:
- Recognised the series of interim orders already granting the society a provisional right to plots in Sectors 40–42.
- Considered the equitable need to treat all similarly-situated societies uniformly to maintain planning consistency within NOIDA.
- Accepted that, although the society had no statutory right to specific land, the State’s own rehabilitation policy and prior concessions warranted relief.
- Held that importing Hiralal Chawla’s terms would balance individual equity with public-purpose planning requirements.
On that basis the Court set aside the High Court’s dismissal and issued detailed directions: limiting beneficiaries to members on 1 May 1976 (max 600), allotting 28.8 acres (40 % of the society’s original holding) in Sectors 40-42 or adjacent sectors, requiring NOIDA to develop and allot within nine months (1 May 1990–31 Jan 1991), fixing the price at Rs 1000 per sq m, granting 12 % interest on prior deposits, and prescribing a three-instalment payment schedule with forfeiture for default. Compliance with NOIDA’s town-planning norms and affidavits regarding absence of other properties were also mandated.
Holding and Implications
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Direct operative effects: (1) approximately 28.8 acres of developed land must be allotted to up to 600 eligible society members within a specified timeline; (2) price and payment terms mirror those in Hiralal Chawla; (3) failure to comply with instalment deadlines results in disqualification and refund with bank interest.
Broader implications are limited: the judgment primarily extends an existing rehabilitation framework to this particular society, reinforcing uniform treatment of similarly-situated land-loser co-operatives in NOIDA. It does not articulate new substantive principles on land acquisition but underscores the Court’s willingness to craft equitable remedies within ongoing urban-development projects.
K.N Saikia, J.— Appellant 1 is a registered Housing Co-operative Society registered under the U.P Co-operative Societies Act, bearing Registration No. 2130 dated March 27, 1973, hereafter referred to as ‘the society’, and appellants 2, 3, and 4 are respectively the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society. The object of the society is to acquire lands for its members for constructing residential houses for them. The members are Central and State Government employees and public sector employees; and more than 70 acres of land situated in villages Chhalera Bangar and Suthari were acquired by the society between January 1973 and September 1975.
2. For development of certain areas in the State of U.P into industrial and urban township and for matters connected therewith, the U.P Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, was enacted and thereafter the U.P Government by a Notification dated April 17, 1976 declared the villages named in the schedule annexed to the notification to be an Industrial Development Area within the meaning of the Act, to be called “NOIDA”.
3. Soon after constituting this Authority a notification under Sections 4 and 17 [sub-section (1) of Section 4 and sub-section (4) of Section 17] of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the U.P Extraordinary Gazette dated April 30, 1976 stating that the land in village Chhalera Bangar was needed for the planned industrial development. The land of the appellant society was included in the notification. In continuation of Notification dated April 30, 1976, another Notification under Section 6 dated May 1, 1976 was issued stating that the land mentioned in the schedule (i.e village Chhalera Bangar) was needed for a public purpose and under Section 7 of that Act to direct the Collector of Bulandshahar to take order for the acquisition of the said land.
4. A notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on June 1, 1976 notifying that the land mentioned in the schedule (i.e land in Suthari village etc.) was needed for a public purpose and that the case was of urgency and as such as the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act were applicable to the land. Notification under Section 6 of that Act was issued on September 16, 1976 notifying that the land mentioned in the schedule (i.e Suthari village etc.) was needed for public purpose and under Section 7 of that Act it directed the Collector to take order of acquisition of the said land.
5. The appellant society and the other registered co-operative societies demanded land in lieu of the land acquired in the NOIDA complex and after several representations and correspondence a sub-committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Sri B.J Khadaiji, Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh to look into the matter. In a meeting held on October 19, 1979 it was decided that sites would be given to various co-operative societies nearest to Delhi on the basis of the NOIDA Master Plan which was under consideration. It was also clarified in that meeting that 35 per cent of the area offered to the members of the society will be plotted area out of the total acquired area of the society. The Executive Officer NOIDA vide his letter dated April 21, 1980 informed that it was proposed to offer developed plots to the bona fide members of the co-operative societies whose lands were acquired. An approximate rate was offered at Rs 130 per square metre in sectors 30, 31, 34, 39 and 40. Certain conditions were also laid down in that letter and one of the conditions was that amount equal to 30 per cent of the price of the area of developed plots computed at Rs 130 per square metre should have to be sent in favour of NOIDA and thereafter tripartite agreement shall have to be made between NOIDA, co-operative societies and individual members after finalisation of lay out plan.
6. Alleging that arbitrary action taken by the NOIDA that far was not acceptable to the appellant society, it filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 6563 of 1980 on July 29, 1980 challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition was admitted by the Allahabad High Court but stay was refused. The society insisted on rehabilitation of the members on the original land on the basis of the policy of the government. The Chief Executive Officer intimated the society that the authority had finally decided to offer lands in sectors 30, 31, 36 and 40 and that 20 per cent of the amount had to be deposited, but the society did not deposit the amount by the stipulated time. The society requested for extension of time, but the NOIDA did not extend it and the appellant society had not been allotted any land. As the writ petition was filed in the year 1980 i.e more than three years after publication of the notifications, the impugned notifications had been upheld by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by the impugned judgment dismissing the writ petition. The appellant society argued before the High Court that the action of the Authority in not allotting land to the appellant society was mala fide and also that action of the Authority in not extending the time as prayed for was arbitrary and discriminatory. It was submitted by the respondents that offer to give developed plots to the appellant society was only as a concession and not as a legal right; the Authority was not bound to extend the time. The appellant society also challenged the price fixed by the authority and the appellant's counsel had not been able to show that anybody was offered developed plots for a price less than Rs 130. The High Court held that appellant society had no legal right to get a particular land and that the society did not avail of the concession granted by the Authority.
7. Hence this appeal by special leave from the impugned judgment and order dated May 6, 1983 of the Allahabad High Court passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 6563 of 1980.
8. While granting special leave on May 30, 1983 there was an order of ex parte stay of dispossession pending notice; but the execution proceedings were allowed to go on. On March 19, 1984 in C.M.P No. 16786 of 1983 it was ordered that Mr Markandeya, advocate on behalf of the petitioners would make a representation to the respondent New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) for the allotment of a suitable site and the representation would be considered on its own merits and a decision taken thereon by the respondent within two months from the date of that order. On April 30, 1984 Mr G.L Sanghi appearing for NOIDA had made a statement before the court that NOIDA undertook that in the event of this appeal being allowed NOIDA would give to the appellants such areas as this Court might specify from sectors 40 and 41 at prices to be determined in accordance with the judgment of this Court. Undertaking given by Mr G.L Sanghi was limited to NOIDA giving areas from sectors 40 and 41 to the appellants and to those persons who were eligible members of the society on May 1, 1976. These orders were said to be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties in this appeal.
9. On May 8, 1985 the order dated April 30, 1984 was modified by this Court directing that NOIDA would give to the appellants such areas as this Court might specify from sectors 40, 41 as also from sector 42 at price to be determined in accordance with the judgment of this Court. If any of the petitioners could not be accommodated in any of these sectors, the NOIDA would give them sites or areas which were contiguous to sectors 40, 41 and 42. On January 18, 1990 this appeal was delinked from the group of NOIDA cases.
10. By judgment and order dated February 13, 1990 the main Writ Petition No. 975 of 1986 —Hiralal Chawla v. State of U.P (1990) 2 SCC 149, (1990) 1 JT 194 was disposed of stating the total number of persons entitled to allotment and sizes of the plots to be allotted and directing that the sites be developed by NOIDA within a period of nine months beginning from March 1, 1990 and allot them by charging the agreed price at the rate of Rs 1000 per square metre and paying 12 per cent interest on the amount deposited till the actual allotment; and that the interest would be adjusted against the price payable on the allotted land. The dates for payment of the first, second and third instalments were also agreed. It was observed that the Town Planning in NOIDA was said to be in accordance with the norms laid down by itself and the same are prescribed by the Board of which the Chief Town and Country Planner of Uttar Pradesh was a member. It was accordingly directed that all the norms laid down by NOIDA in the matter of development shall be strictly followed. Supervision of this operation should be by NOIDA and the appellants would co-operate with NOIDA in that regard.
11. When this appeal was heard on April 5, 1990 there was a consensus that justice would be done to the parties, if this appeal is also disposed of on similar terms as in Hiralal Chawla v. State of U.P (1990) 2 SCC 149, (1990) 1 JT 194 However, the parties were allowed to file written submissions. Written submissions were accordingly filed by the respondents, in reply thereto by the appellants, and for the intervener.
12. Taking into consideration the earlier interim orders, the consensus arrived at the hearing and the written submissions, it is ordered in line with Hiralal (1990) 2 SCC 149, (1990) 1 JT 194 that the interim orders dated May 30, 1983, March 19, 1984, April 30, 1984 and May 8, 1985 will merge in this order. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and it is ordered : (A) That the total number of persons entitled to allotment will be confined to those persons who were eligible members of the society on May 1, 1976 not exceeding 600 (six hundred). (B) The total area to be allotted to the members of the society will be 28.8 acres in the form of developed plots. This amounts to 40 per cent of the total 72 acres of land acquired by the society in the villages Chhalera Bangar and Suthari between 1973 and September 1975. (C) The allotment shall be made in sectors 40, 41 and 42 and if sufficient number of plots are not available in these sectors, then from the adjacent sectors. (D) The plots to be allotted are to be developed by NOIDA within a period of nine months beginning from May 1, 1990 and ending on January 31, 1991 by which date the plots shall be allotted to the entitled members of the society. (E) The NOIDA shall be permitted to charge the price of the allotted plots at the rate of Rs 1000 per square metre. (F) Every member who has deposited any sum of money with NOIDA against proposed allotment shall be entitled to 12 per cent interest on such amount from the date of deposit till the actual allotment and such interest accrued in favour of the person shall be entitled to adjustment of such interest against the actual price of the land to be worked out at the rate of Rs 1000 per square metre. Balance amount, if any, shall have to be paid by every eligible member of the society as on May 1, 1976 not exceeding 600 in all, within three months from now in three equal monthly instalments. The first instalment will be paid on or before May 31, 1990, the second instalment to be paid on or before June 30, 1990 and the third instalment to be paid on or before July 31, 1990. (G) It shall be the obligation of the society to duly notify every member of these directions and the time factor forthwith as failure to pay any of these instalments within the time limit indicated above shall disqualify such person from allotment and NOIDA will thereafter be only obliged to refund the money lying to the credit of the defaulter with bank rate of interest. (H) It is stated by the parties that a review application in Hiralal Chawla case (1990) 2 SCC 149, (1990) 1 JT 194 is pending. As agreed by the parties in case that review is allowed, the parties herein shall be at liberty to apply for review of this judgment to similar extent. (I) Each allottee shall furnish an affidavit to the effect that neither he/she or spouse, nor dependent children owns any other plot or house or flat within NOIDA.
13. Town Planning in NOIDA is said to be in accordance with the norms laid down by itself and the same are prescribed by the Board of which the Chief Town and Country Planner of Uttar Pradesh is a member. We direct that all the norms laid down by NOIDA in the matter of development shall be strictly followed. Supervision of this operation of course shall be by NOIDA but we hope and trust that the society would co-operate with NOIDA in this regard. The appeal is disposed of with these directions without any orders as to costs.
Alert