Holding

Reservations for political sufferers and for employees of the Central Government, public undertakings and international organisations are unconstitutional, while reservations for land‑acquired persons, entrepreneurs, NOIDA employees and HUDCO nominees are valid.

Summary

The New Okhla Development Area Authority (NOIDA), constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, announced LIG‑EWS and MIG housing schemes and later reserved a percentage of houses for various categories, including land‑acquired persons, entrepreneurs, NOIDA employees, central government employees, political sufferers, and HUDCO nominees. Forty applicants for LIG‑EWS houses and five for MIG houses filed writ petitions challenging the reservations as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether each class of reservation was constitutionally permissible, emphasizing the object of the Act and the need for urgent housing. It held that reservations for political sufferers and for employees of the Central Government, public undertakings and international organisations were unconstitutional, whereas reservations for land‑acquired persons, entrepreneurs, NOIDA employees and HUDCO nominees were valid. The Court dismissed all writ petitions, confirming the allotments already made to the petitioners and declined to issue any further directions.

Issues considered

Whether the reservation of houses in favour of various categories under the NOIDA housing schemes violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether reservations for political sufferers and for employees of the Central Government, public undertakings and international organisations are constitutionally invalid.
Whether the Court can order further allotments beyond those already effected.
Whether petitioners who failed to act promptly are entitled to relief.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976

Subjects

reservationhousing schemeArticle 14equalityindustrial development authorityNOIDApublic interestpromptitudewrit petitionUttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act

Judgment

A I.L. DHINGRA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

APRIL 6, 1987
B
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976: NOIDA-
Industrial and Urban township-Development of-Reservation of built
houses in favour of certain categories-Validity of.

C Constitution of India, Article 14: Industrial and Urban town- ~. -
ships-LIG-EWS, MIG houses-Reservation in favour of political
sufferers, employees of Central Government, Public Sector Under-
takings and International Organisations-Validity of.

The New Okbla Development Area Authority (NOIDA) consti·
D
toted nnder the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 for the development of an industrial and urban
township and for matters connected therewith, announced two
schemes, called LIG·EWS and MIG Schemes, and invited applications
for allotment of houses constructed and proposed to be constructed.
E Later on, it decided to reserve a certain percentage of houses in the first
scheme for some categories of persons-(!) persons whose land had
been acquired for development, (2) entrepreneurs of the area and their
employees, (3) employees of NOIDA Authority, U.P. State Government
undertakings, U.P. State Development Authorities and U.P. Govern·
ment, (4) employees of Central Government, Government of India
F Public Undertakings, International Organisations, (5) political suffer·
ers, and (6) nominees ofHUDCO. For the MIG Group of houses, reser·
vation was mentioned in the original advertisement. '

Forty disappointed applicants for allotment of LIG/EWS houses
filed a writ petition questioning reservation in favour of entrepreneurs.
G Another group of six persons, who had applied for allotment of MIG
houses, also filed writ petitions. After interim orders were made in these
two sets of petitions on March 12, 1982 several hundred more petitions
in each category were also filed. All these petitions were heard together
on April 30, 1984. As a result of the various orders made by the Court
from time to time, forty petitioners of the first category and five
H petitioners of the second category were accommodated in the two

792
1.L. DHINGRA v. U.P. STATE 793

schemes, and all those who took advantage of the order dated April 30, A
1984 were also accommodated.

Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court,

HELD: Keeping in view the object of the Act under which the
NOIDA Authority was constituted, prima fade, the reservation in B
favour of political sufferers and employees of Central government,
Government of India public undertakings and international organisa-
tions was bad, while reservation in favour of persons whose land has
been acquired, entrepreneurs of NOIDA and their employees,
employees of NOIDA and nominees of HUDCO was sound and justi-
fiable. [798G-H; 799A)
c
In matters of this nature where apart from the fact that rights of
other parties intervene straightaway when allotment is made in their
favour, it is not in public interest that housing schemes should be kept
in abeyance or hanging fire when the need is urgent. (7998-C)
0
If some of the petitioners have failed to act with that degree of
promptitude which is expected in such matters, they are not entitled to
any relief from the Court. However, by virtue of the orders made by the
-+ Court from time to time, some of them have been benefited by allotment
of houses. Such benefits as have accrued to them will stand and no

- further orders are necessary. [799C-D)

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 2293-97 of
E

1982 etc. etc.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
F
S. Markandeya, A.V. Rangam, G. Goswami, K.B. Rohtagi.
Tara Chand Sharma. Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, S. Mitter, Ms. Abha
Jain, 1\1.S. Das Bahl, A. Subba Rao, M. Qumaruddin, P.N. Rama-
lingam, D.K. Garg, A.K. Goel, H.K. Puri, R. Venkataramani, A.S.
Pundir, Mukul Mudgal, R.N. Keswani, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, S.K.
Gupta, H.S. Parihar, S.K. Bisaria, K.C. Dua, N.N. Sharma, Prem G
Malhotra, Dalveer Bhandari, B.R. Aggarwal, S.C. Patel, S.K.
Verma, Mrs. M. Karanjawala, K.B. Rohtagi, R.P. Singh, A.N.
Bardiyar, V.K. Verma, R.P. Gupta, Shakeel Ahmed, and Mrs.
Urmila Sirur for the Petitioners.

Anil Dev Singh, Ashok Grover, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A Shobha Dikshit, Raju Ramachandran, P.K. Ghosh, K.L. Goyal, H.S.
Parihar and P.P. Singh for the Respondent. 'r
P.H. Parekh, K.K. Gupta and Amlan Ghosh for the Interveners.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
CIDNNAPPA REDDY, J. The Uttar Pradesh Legislature enac-
ted the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 for the >-.
constitution of an authority for the development of certain areas in the
State into industrial and urban townships and for matters connected
therewith. The New Okhla Development Area Authority (NOIDA)
~- -
c was constituted under the provisions of this Act. NOIDA acquired
vast extends of land in the autskirts of Delhi for the purpose of
developing an industrial and urban township. NOIDA announced two )>--
schemes called LIG-EWS and MIG Schemes and invited applications
for allotment of houses constructed and proposed to be constructed by
them. Several thousand applications were received and NOIDA
D
announced closure of the schemes on December 11, 1980. Though in
the original advertisement relating to the LIG-EWS scheme, there was
no reservation of allotment in favour of any class of persons, it appears
that later on NO IDA decided to reserve a certain percentage of houses
for some categories of persons in the following manner:- -+
E
" (I) Persons whose land has been
acquired by NOIDA for the
development of NOIDA ". 2%
(2) Enterpreneurs of NO IDA,
and their employees ... 17%
·-1.
.,
F )--~
~

(3) Employees ofNOIDA, UP
State Government under-
taking, UP State Development
Authorities and UP
Government ". 15%
G (4) Employees of Central
Government, Government of '
India, Public Undertakings, ~
International Organisations ". 5%
(5) Political Sufferers ". 5%
H (6) NomineesofHUDCO ... 20%"
J.L. DHINGRA v. U.P. STATE [REDDY, J.] 795

So far as the MIG houses are concerned, the reservation was men- A
l tioned even in the original advertisement inviting applications for
allotment of houses.

Forty disappointed applicants for allotment of LIG-EWS houses
filed writ petition No. 220 of 1981 primarily questioning the reserva-
tion in favour of enterpreneurs and seeking a direction that the claims B
of the petitioners for allotment should be considered in any future
scheme. A Rule Nisi was issued by the court on April 4, 1981 and on
May 8, 1981, an interim order was also made restraining NOIDA from
making any fresh allotment of houses without obtaining the previous
order of the court. Another group of six persons who had applied for
allotment of MIG houses filed Writ Petition Nos. 2292-97 of 1982 and C
a similar interim order was made in these petitions also on March 12,
1982. On the same day, that is, March 12, 1982 the application for
interim directions in Writ Petition No. 220 of 1981 came up before
another bench and an order was made therein permitting NOIDA to
assign numbers to houses which had already been allotted but directing
NOIDA to reserve 40 houses, so that the petitioners could be accom- D
modated if they succeeded in the writ petition. What is important to be
noted here is that by March 1982, only 40 persons had approached this
court in the matter of allotment of houses under the LIG-EWS Scheme
and six persons in the matter of allotment of houses under the MIG
Scheme. Thereafter there appear to have been several hundred peti-
tions of each category. On April 30, 1984 all the petitions were heard E
together and an order was made by this court consisting of D.A. Desai
and R.B. Misra, JJ. in the following terms:-

"Mr. A.M. Srivastava, the Court Master is appointed as
Court officer to do the following things:
F
By our order dated March 12, 1982 this court directed
that respondents will not allot 40 houses till the disposal of
the writ petition. Mr. O.P. Rana, learned counsel states
that this order was understood by the respondents to mean
that 40 houses shall be kept vacant both in EWS Group and
LIG Group. These 40 houses are available for allotment in G
each of the aforementioned groups.

We direct that. the petitions in each EWS and LIG
group who are desirous of having allotment of 'one of the
houses reserved for the group shall immediately give their
names with registration numbers latest by May 31, 1984 to H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A Mr. A.M. Srivastava, the Court Officer appointed by the ..';-.
Court. He shall keep a register in which he will register the
name of each such intending original applicant with the
registration number. Each such applicant shall also state
that he will abide by the order of this Court with respect to
interest and incidental management charges that the Court
B may determine in case of EWS and LIG allotments. In
respect of these 40 houses in each group the price will be )..._
the old price at which the house in each group was
advertised." ~

"The respondent shall submit a statement within four
weeks from today specifying the split up of the amount
c
worked out as price of each house in EWS group ranging )...
from 27,000 to Rs.35,000 specifically referring to the com-
ponent of price of the land included in the computation."

"The respondents shall submit a statement specifying
D how cost of construction per sq. metre in respect of EWS
and MIG is determined. If houses in any group is subsi-
dised without disclosing the names and nature of the
subsidies, the same shall be disclosed. Only the original
applicants for the EWS and LIG group will be entitled for +
allotment but no one is entitled to cross the group in which
E registration was obtained."

"Mr. O.P. Rana, learned counsel for the respondents
states that respondents have 347 houses of Type III which --f
could be provided to applicants in MIG group and 621
quarters in type 11 which could be allotted to applicants in ·~
F LIG group. It appears that L!G and MIG have acquired
new designation as type III and Type II group. It is, there-
fore, desirable to permit applicants registered in MIG to be
grouped together with type JII group and LJG with type II
group.

G "Fair play and justice demands subject to just excep- j.-
tion applicants registered in MIG and LIG groups must be
allowed to participate in draw of lot for houses in Type III
and Type II houses with this reservation that each of the
applicants in either LIG or MIG shall undertake to pay
prize as now fixed namely Rs.1,52,000 for MIG house each
H and Rs.59,000 for LIG house (type III and type II respec-
LL. DHJNGRA v. U.P. STATE (REDDY, J.] 797

lively). It is hereby clarified that those who had registered A
in Ml G group earlier shall be entitled to participate for the
allotment of type Ill quarters and those who had applied
for LIG group shall be entitled to participate for allotment
of type II quarters. Each one of \he applicant who desires
to participate shall follow the same prescribed procedure as
herein indicated giving the necessary undertaking that he B
will abide by the direction of the Court. The applicants will
give their names and registration number latest by May 31.
1984. Six weeks thereafter the respondents shall proceed to
.·...=- draw the lot for allotment if there are more applications
than the available number of quarters in the presence of
the Court Officer who shall hold and supervise the draw C
with the assistance of the NOIDA AUTHORITIES and
each one who succeed in the draw of lot shall be put in
actual possession within four weeks thereafter."

"The Nodia authorities will give wide publicity to this
order." D

"Learned counsel on either side will exchange the
responses to various proposals rooted out within two or
three days from today and the matters will be listed after
summer vacation.''
E
On July 17, 1984, the earlier order was clarified in the following
manner:-

"(1) Pursuant to the order dated March 12, 1982 the
NOIDA authorities were directed not to allot 40 houses to
anyone so that the petitioners if they succeed in the Writ F
Petition, will not be denied houses for want of sufficient
number of houses. Therefore 40 houses were reserved in
W.P. No. 228 of 1981. The lot to be drawn in this case is
amongst the 40 petitioners with regard to which houses
should be given not anyone else but to those who are
entitled to participate in the lots for these 40 houses. G

(2) When we refer to the petitioners applicants in our
order dated April 30, 1984. It is clarified that all these
persons who have moved either by way of appellants or
Writ Petitioners and who had deposited the amount and
those who had re-deposited the amount under the orders of H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

this Court and accepted by the NOIDA authorities in con-
A
sonance with the order of this court, all of them shall form
one class for participating in the lot. Mr. A.M. Srivastava,
Court Master should carry put the directions as herein
directed to supervise the draw of the lot by the NOIDA
authorities and complete the draw within one month from
B today.
,..
We are satisfied that the persons who have made the
applications within the time bound programme shall be en-
~~ ~

titled to participate in the proceedings in the draw of the
lot."
c It will be noticed that though there was an order in favour of the 40
).._
petitioners in Writ Petition No. 228 of f981 that forty LIG-EWS
houses may be released to them, there was no similar order in favour of
the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2292-97 of 1982 to release MIG
houses in their favour, notwithstanding that they stood on the same
D footing. This question was considered on March 25, 1985 and an order
was made directing the release of five MIG houses to l.L. Dhingra,
H.K. Bhatia. C.S. Tomar, Jagan Nath and Gian Chand (petitioners in
Writ Petition Nos. 2293-97 of 1982). The stay granted by the court
earlier which prevented delivery of the possession of houses to persons --+
to whom houses were originally allotted was vacated. It will thus be
E seen that as a result of the various orders made by the court from time
to time, the forty petitioners in Writ Petition No. 228 of 1981 and five
petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2293-97 of 1982 were accommodated
-
in the two schemes and all those wh() took advantage of the order of
the court dated April 30, 1984 were also accommodated. We do not f
think that it is either possible or permissible for this court to give any
~
F further direction in these matters. The orders made at several stages of
these petitions should really conclude the matter.

Shri Markandeya, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that
the reservation made by NOIDA in favour of some of the categories of
persons above-mentioned was bad. Keeping in view the object of the
G Act under which NO IDA was constituted, prima facie, the reservation '
in favour of political sufferers and employees of Central Government, t--
Government of India Public Undertakings and International Organi-
sations appears to us to be bad, while reservation in favour of persons
whose land was been acquired, entrepreneurs and NO IDA employees
and employees of NOIDA appears to be sound. Reservation in favour
H of persons belonging to scheduled castes, Scheduled tribes and back-
l.L. DHINGRA v. U.P. STATE [REDDY, J.) 799

I ward classes was not questioned before us. Reservation in favour of A
( nominees of HUDCO was questioned but it appears to us to be prima
facie justifiable as HUDCO is the principal financier of the schemes.
However,. in the circumstances of these cases, we do not propose to
probe further into the question of the validity of the reservations as we
think that the petitioners in the writ petitions other than Writ Petition
B
Nos. 228 of 1981 and 2293-97 of 1982 are not entitled to any relief as

.~ they cannot be said to have acted with that degree of promptitude
which is expected in matters of this nature where apart from the fact
that rights of other parties intervene straightaway when allotment is
• ~
made in their favour, it is not in the public interest that housing
schemes etc. such as the present schemes should be kept in abeyance
or hanging fire when the need is urgent. However by virtue of the c
orders made by the court from time to time, some of them have been
-~ benefited by allotment of houses which were available and such
benefits as have accrued to them will stand. The petitioners in Writ
Petition No. 228 of 1981 and Writ Petition Nos. 2293-97 of 1982 have
been allotted houses pursuant to the interim orders of this court and
D
no further orders are necessary in their case. All the writ petitions are,
therefore, dismissed but subject to .the allotments made from time to
time pursuant to the orders of this Court.

-+ P.S.S Petitions dismissed.