Case: JYPD Scheme Welfare Trust Vs. The Chief Officer, M.H.A.D. and Ors

claimed the allotment are required to be considered as per the fresh directives and guidelines which would govern the exercise of powers of Regulation 16. It is submitted that, therefore, the appellant (original writ petitioner) cannot claim any right of allotment under the original Regulation 16. It is submitted that, therefore, there are changed circumstances in view of the subsequent decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 75 of 2004. 5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Shyam Divan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 that in fact thereafter there is a lease in favour of Respondent No. 4 initially for a period of 15 years and thereafter the same has been extended for a further period of 15 years. It is submitted that under the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4, Respondent No. 4 has deposited Rs. Rs. 1,38,61,046/-. It is submitted that not only that thereafter Respondent No. 4 has fully made improvements in the land and the plot in question and the same is being used by the school children of the locality and even by the other people of the locality. It is submitted that Respondent No. 4 has strictly complied with the consent terms submitted before the High Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions and has strictly complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and nobody has raised any grievance. It is submitted, in the present case, the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4 is not under challenge. It is submitted that the appellant (the original writ petitioner) was very much aware of the earlier allotment in favour of Respondent No. 4 and the subsequent lease in Respondent No. 4 from the very beginning, still the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4 has not been challenged. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal. 6. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the very outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant herein applied for allotment of plot in issue under Regulation 16 of 1982 Regulation. It is required to be noted that at the time when the appellant (the original writ petitioner) applied and in fact was allotted the plot in issue in the month of February, 2004 there were different guidelines and the directives in force. However, Regulation 16 itself was under challenge before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 75 of 2004 on the ground that Regulation 16 confers uncontrolled, arbitrary as well as sweeping powers on the Government to allot the plots which are part of housing schemes implemented by MHADA, to outsiders and third parties. That, in between, the State as well as MHADA came out with the fresh directives and guidelines which would govern exercise of powers under Regulation 16. Therefore, the High Court by judgment and order dated 15.09.2004 did not set aside Regulation 16, however, the High Court approved the guidelines. Therefore, thereafter the powers under Regulation 16 are to be exercised as per the fresh directives and guidelines which came to be approved by the High Court. Therefore, the guidelines under which the powers were exercised under Regulation 16, at the time when the appellant applied and claimed the right of allotment is not in existence. A fresh directives and guidelines would govern the exercise of powers under Regulation 16, which came to be approved by the High Court, are to be applied. 7. It is true that when the order of cancellation dated 24.08.2004 was passed, the same was solely on the ground that the appellant- Trust did not submit the relevant documents to prove its eligibility and on no other ground. The High Court considered the grounds stated in the counter affidavit and did not interfere with the order of cancellation dated 24.08.2004. The appellant would be justified in making the grievance that the High Court was not justified in considering the grounds stated in the counter affidavit which were not the basis for passing the original order of cancellation. However, at the same time, subsequent development and grant of the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4 initially for a period of 15 years and thereafter for a further period of 15 years and the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4 is not challenged, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. It is required to be noted that there is a lease in favour of Respondent No. 4 since 2004-2005. That Respondent No. 4 had deposited/paid Rs. 1,38,61,046/-. It is also required to be noted that the consent terms recorded by the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 9164 of 2005, 1978 of 2007 and 1489 of 2005, on the basis of which the High Court disposed of the aforesaid three writ petitions in terms of the consent terms and on the basis of which the lease of plot in issue in favour of Respondent No.4, the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4 has not been challenged. The lease granted to Respondent No. 4 was pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions. It is true that the appellant- Trust was not a party to the said writ petitions. However, still, either the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions and even the lease granted in favour of Respondent No. 4 was/is required to be challenged before the competent Court of Law. 8. The submission on behalf of the appellant that as per the order passed by this Court dated 10.05.2005, the arrangement, if any, with Respondent No. 4 would be subject to the result of present writ petition and, therefore, the appellant is not required to challenge the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4, cannot be accepted. In the present appeal, there is no specific challenge to the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the very outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant herein applied for allotment of plot in issue under Regulation 16 of 1982 Regulation. It is required to be noted that at the time when the appellant (the original writ petitioner) applied and in fact was allotted the plot in issue in the month of February, 2004 there were different guidelines and the directives in force. However, Regulation 16 itself was under challenge before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 75 of 2004 on the ground that Regulation 16 confers uncontrolled, arbitrary as well as sweeping powers on the Government to allot the plots which are part of housing schemes implemented by MHADA, to outsiders and third parties. That, in between, the State as well as MHADA came out with the fresh directives and guidelines which would govern exercise of powers under Regulation 16. Therefore, the High Court by judgment and order dated 15.09.2004 did not set aside Regulation 16, however, the High Court approved the guidelines. Therefore, thereafter the powers under Regulation 16 are to be exercised as per the fresh directives and guidelines which came to be approved by the High Court. Therefore, the guidelines under which the powers were exercised under Regulation 16, at the time when the appellant applied and claimed the right of allotment is not in existence. A fresh directives and guidelines would govern the exercise of powers under Regulation 16, which came to be approved by the High Court, are to be applied.It is true that when the order of cancellation dated 24.08.2004 was passed, the same was solely on the ground that the appellant- Trust did not submit the relevant documents to prove its eligibility and on no other ground. The High Court considered the grounds stated in the counter affidavit and did not interfere with the order of cancellation dated 24.08.2004. The appellant would be justified in making the grievance that the High Court was not justified in considering the grounds stated in the counter affidavit which were not the basis for passing the original order of cancellation. However, at the same time, subsequent development and grant of the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4 initially for a period of 15 years and thereafter for a further period of 15 years and the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4 is not challenged, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. It is required to be noted that there is a lease in favour of Respondent No. 4 since 2004-2005. That Respondent No. 4 had deposited/paid Rs. 1,38,61,046/-. It is also required to be noted that the consent terms recorded by the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 9164 of 2005, 1978 of 2007 and 1489 of 2005, on the basis of which the High Court disposed of the aforesaid three writ petitions in terms of the consent terms and on the basis of which the lease of plot in issue in favour of Respondent No.4, the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4 has not been challenged. The lease granted to Respondent No. 4 was pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions. It is true that the appellant- Trust was not a party to the said writ petitions. However, still, either the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions and even the lease granted in favour of Respondent No. 4 was/is required to be challenged before the competent Court of Law.The submission on behalf of the appellant that as per the order passed by this Court dated 10.05.2005, the arrangement, if any, with Respondent No. 4 would be subject to the result of present writ petition and, therefore, the appellant is not required to challenge the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4, cannot be accepted. In the present appeal, there is no specific challenge to the lease in favour of Respondent No. 4.