'Why Did You Make Allotment When Litigation Was Pending?' : Supreme Court Asks MCD Noting That Allottees Are In A Fix
The Supreme Court recently dealt with a peculiar case in which the persons who were allotted land by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were entangled in an impasse in view of a web of litigations pending over thirty years.The Govt of NCT of Delhi had acquired land to give effect to a scheme by the MCD(appellant) for constructing a truck repairing complex at Samlakha, Delhi Gurgaon road....
The Supreme Court recently dealt with a peculiar case in which the persons who were allotted land by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were entangled in an impasse in view of a web of litigations pending over thirty years.
The Govt of NCT of Delhi had acquired land to give effect to a scheme by the MCD(appellant) for constructing a truck repairing complex at Samlakha, Delhi Gurgaon road. The acquisition was completed through an award on 19th September 1986 but before possession could be taken, the landowners approached the HC in which order to maintain the status quo passed. Meanwhile, in anticipation of getting acquired property, the MCD allotted the plots to different persons.
The allottees(Respondents) initiated separate proceedings to grant them possession of allotted plots considering there was 20 years lapse in handing over possession. Moreover, certain constructions had taken place on the said land which was sought to be regularised by concerned authorities.
There arose 3 proceedings- one challenging the acquisition of property in dispute, another seeking regularisation of unauthorized constructions at the site, and another for delivery of possession of plots carved out by the appellant to implement the development scheme.
The division bench of the Delhi High Court in its impugned order of 2009 directed appellants to examine whether the unauthorised colony was to be regularised, keeping in view judicial orders already passed in that regard. The HC further allowed the respondent to seek remedy against the appellant for an alternate plot or any other relief permissible in relief.
Proceedings before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Dutta took note of the peculiar circumstances and held that a holistic view has to be taken in the wake of 3 issues of validity of acquisition, regularisation, and the fate of allottees . It requested the Chief Justice of Delhi HC to post matters for hearing immediately and finish it expeditiously within 6 months.
Justice Surya Kant orally remarked, “The problem is, you want to come to courts for everything”. In the course of hearings, he also added “Why did you make the allotment when litigation was pending with respect to the property”?
To which the counsel for MCD replied that “we were anticipating that land would be acquired and therefore allotment was made.”
The Supreme Court observed that different sets of writ petitions seeking quash of acquisition/ regularisation and direction to hand over possession to allotted have been listed before different benches at different points of time which has resulted in the issuance of directions that authorities may find difficult to give effect to.
The court noted that the allottees cannot be handed over possession under the new scheme unless physical possession of the property is allowed to be taken over by appellants free from all encumbrances. Similarly, if the competent authority decides to regularise, the allottees cannot be handed over plots though they may be entitled to some other relief.
Therefore the Supreme Court opined that “HC needs to revisit issues raised in all the matters of 3 categories and take a holistic view in respect of the validity of acquisition, regularisation, and nature of some effective relief that can be granted to allottees.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and remitted the case to HC for fresh adjudication on all 3 issues by way of common order.
The Court also directed the appellants to consolidate and list them before one appropriate bench.
The court also requested the CJ of Delhi HC to post matters for hearing immediately, with a further request to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within 6 months.
Case title: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kirpal Singh
Citation: C.A. No. 4478/2013