Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8526 OF 2011 (Arising out of  S. L. P. (C) No. 34168 of 2009)

  Delhi Administration through its Secretary       ……  Appellant

Versus

Umrao Singh      ……  Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8527 OF 2011 (Arising out of  S. L. P. (C) No. 35196 OF 2009)

  Delhi Administration through its Secretary       ……  Appellant

Versus

Ramesh Kumari      ……  Respondent

O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

2. These are appeals against the common judgment  

and order dated 15.12.2008 of the Division Bench of the  

High Court of Delhi in Civil  Writ Petition Nos.2147 of  

1992  and 2148 of 1992 (for short the ‘impugned order’).

3. The facts very briefly are that in the year 1959,  

the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, set  

up a Committee to study the problems of introducing  

measures of control on land values and stabilizing land  

prices in the urban areas of Delhi and this Committee  

submitted  its  report  recommending  some  measures.  

The  Government  of  India  considered  the  

recommendations and conveyed its decision to the Chief  

Commissioner,  Delhi,  by  its  letter  dated  02.05.1961  

regarding acquisition, development and disposal of land  

(hereinafter called ‘the 1961 Scheme’).The 1961 Scheme  

inter alia contemplated that land may be allotted at pre-

determined rates, namely, at the cost of acquisition and  

development plus the additional charges mentioned in  

2

the  Scheme,   to  individuals  whose  land  has  been  

acquired  as  a  result  of  the  Chief  Commissioner’s  

notifications dated 17.07.1959, 03.09.1957, 13.11.1959  

and 10.11.1960 or other such notifications with a view  

to rehabilitate such individuals.  Pursuant to the 1961  

Scheme, land-owners, whose land was acquired, applied  

for  allotment  of  alternative  plots  pursuant  to  

advertisements  inviting  applications  and  after  the  

necessary  requirements  as  stipulated  in  the  1961  

Scheme were complied with, plots were allotted to the  

persons who were the recorded owners prior to the issue  

of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition  

Act.  

4.   By an Officer Order dated 03.04.1986 issued by the  

Delhi  Administration,   Delhi,  Land  and  Building  

Department,  the  1961  Scheme  was  amended.   The  

Office  Order  dated  03.04.1986  is  extracted  

hereinbelow:-

“DELHI ADMINISTATION, DELHI

3

LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT VIKAS MINAR, NEW DELHI.

37(32)/1/12             Dated: 3rd April’ 86

Office Order

In supersession of and previous order issued on  the subject, the Administrator Delhi is pleased  to order that following norms should be followed  in respect of allotment of alternative plots in lieu  of the land acquired for Planned Development of  Delhi under the scope of large scale Acquisition,  Development and Disposal of land in Delhi of the  Government  of  India  contained  in  their  letter  dated 2.5.1961.

1. In order to make applicant eligible for all  allotment   of   alternative   plot,   the  minimum  land   acquired  for  Planned  Development  of  Delhi  will  be  one  bigha  instead of  150 sq.  yds.  which was  being  followed earlier.

2. In case  the  applicant  has  purchased the  requisite land of  1 bigha he should have  purchased the same 5 years earlier  than  the date  of  notification under Section 4 of  the Delhi  Land Acquisition Act in order to  make  him  eligible  for  allotment  of  alternative plot.

3. Condition   No.  2  will,  however,  not  be  applicable in respect of ancestral cases.

4. Minimum size of the plot will be restricted  to 250 sq. yards where  land acquired is  more than 10 bighas.  Cases  where  land  acquired is more than 5  bighas  but  upto  

4

10  bighas plot size of 150 sq. yds. will be  recommended and in respect of the cases  where the land acquired ranges between 1  bigha to 5 bighas, the size of the plot will  be restricted to 80 sq. yrds.

5. The plot  will  be allotted by DDA on pre- determined  rates  fixed  by  the  Competent  Authority from time to time.

It  is  also  clarified  that  these  orders  shall  also  apply to all pending applications.   

(P.S. Bhatnagar) SECRETARY

(LAND AND BUILDING)”

It was, thus, stipulated in the amended Scheme that in  

case the applicant has purchased the requisite land of  

one  bigha,  he  should  have  purchased  the  same  five  

years earlier than the date of notification under Section  

4  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  in  order  to  make  him  

eligible for allotment of alternative plot.

5.     On 27.01.1984, a notification was issued under  

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of  

3787 bighas and 12 biswas of land situated in Village  

Andheria  for  the  public  purpose  of  Planned  

5

Development of Delhi, which included the lands of the  

respondents,  and  the  respondents  were  paid  

compensation  in  accordance  with  the  Awards.   The  

Government thereafter invited applications for allotment  

of  alternative  plots  under  the  1961  Scheme  and  the  

respondents applied for allotment of alternative plots in  

their  applications  dated  07.11.1986.   As  the  

applications  submitted  by  the  respondents  lacked  

material particulars and were not accompanied with the  

relevant documents, the respondents were intimated to  

furnish material particulars and the relevant documents  

including the sale deeds by which they had purchased  

the  land.   The  respondents  furnished  the  particulars  

and documents and on scrutiny, it was found that the  

respondents had purchased the land in the years 1982  

and 1983.   The applications  of  the  respondents  were  

rejected by communications dated 30.09.1991 as they  

had purchased the lands within five years of the date of  

the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition  

Act, i.e. 22.01.1984.

6

6. Aggrieved, the respondents filed Civil Writ Petition  

Nos.2147 of 1992 and 2148 of 1992 in the High Court  

and  contended  that  the  1961  Scheme  had  been  

incorporated  in  the  Delhi  Development  Authority  

(Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (for short  

‘the Nazul Land Rules’), which are statutory in character  

and  these  rules   could  not  be  amended  by  an  

administrative order dated 03.04.1986.  The High Court  

accepted the contention of the petitioner and held in the  

impugned order that Nazul Land Rules had been made  

by  the  Central  Government  under  clause  (j)  of  sub-

section  (2)  of  Section  56  read  with  sub-section  (3)  of  

Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short  

‘the  Act’)  and  could  be  amended  only  in  the  manner  

prescribed under Section 56 read with Section 22 of the  

Act and by an administrative order a further condition  

could not be stipulated under Rule 6 of the Nazul Land  

Rules.   The  High  Court  accordingly  set  aside  the  

communications   dated   30.09.1991  rejecting  the  

applications of  the  respondents  for   alternative  plots  

7

and remitted the matter to the appellants to consider the  

request of the respondents  in the light of the provisions  

contained in the Nazul Land Rules and made it clear that  

the  appellants  would  be  permitted  to  take  into  

consideration  the  nature  of  the  policy  as  well  as  the  

condition stipulated in the 1961 Scheme as explained in  

the Full Bench judgment of the High Court in Ramanand  

v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 1994 Delhi 29].   

7.    The only contention raised by the learned counsel  

for the appellant before us is that the view taken by the  

High Court that the 1961 Scheme could not have been  

amended by the administrative order dated 03.04.1986  

was not correct.  Learned counsel for the respondents,  

on the other hand, supported the impugned order of the  

High Court.

8. Rules 4 and 6 of the Nazul Land Rules, which are  

relevant for deciding the issue raised in this appeal, are  

extracted hereinbelow:  

“4.  Persons  to  whom  Nazul  land  may  be  allotted.-(1) The Authority may, in conformity  with  the  plans,  and  subject  to  the  other  

8

provisions  of  these  rules,  allot  Nazul  land to  individuals,  [body  of  persons,  firms,  companies],  public  and  private  institutions,  co-operative house building societies, other co- operative  societies  of  individuals,  cooperative  societies  of  industrialists  and  to  the  departments of the Central Government, State  Governments and the Union territories.

(2)   The  Authority  shall,  in conformity with  plans  and  subject  to  the  provisions  of  these  rules, dispose the Nazul land by  auction to the  following institutions :

(a) hospitals; (b) dispensaries; (c) nursing homes; (d) higher or technical education institutions; (e) community halls; (f) clubs; (g) schools:

Provided that nothing  in  this sub-rule shall  affect  the  allotment  of  land  to  the  Central  Government,   State  Government,  Union  territory,  local  body,  autonomous  bodies  or  organisations  owned  by  the  Central  Government.”

“6.  Allotment  of  Nazul  land  at  pre- determined  rates.--  Subject  to  the  other  provisions of these rules, the Authority  shall  allot  Nazul land at the pre-determined rates in  the following cases, namely:-

(i) to individuals whose land has been acquired  for planned development of Delhi after the 1st  day of January,1961, and which forms part of  Nazul land:

9

Provided that if an individual is to be allotted a  residential  plot,  the size  of  such plot  may be  determined  by  the  Administrator  after  taking  into consideration the area and the value of the  land acquired from him and the location and  the value of the plot to be allotted;

(ii)  to  individuals  in the low income group or  the middle income group other than specified  in clause (i) --

(a) who are tenants in a building in any  area  in  respect  of  which  a  slum  clearance  order  is  made  under  the  Slum Areas Act;

(b) who, in any slum area or the other  congested  area,  own any  plot  of  land  measuring less than 67 square metres  or own any building in any slum area  or other congested area;

(iii) to individuals, other than those specified in  clauses (i) and (ii), who are in the low income  group or the middle income group, by draw of  lots to be conducted under the supervision of  the Land Allotment Advisory Committee;

(iv)  to  individuals  belonging  to  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  or  who  are  widows of defence personnel killed in action, or  ex-servicemen,  physically  handicapped  individuals subject to the provisions of rule 13;

(v) to industrialists or owners and occupiers of  warehouses   who  are  required  to  shift  their  industries  and  warehouses  from  non- conforming areas to conforming area under the  

10

Master Plan, or whose land is  acquired or is  proposed to be acquired under the Act:

Provided  that  the size of such industrial plot  shall  be  determined  with  reference  to  the  requirement of the industry or warehouses set  up  or  to  be  set  up  in  accordance  with  the  plants  and such industrialists  and owners of  warehouses have the capacity to establish and  run  such industries or warehouses and on the  condition  that  the  land  allotted  at  pre- determined rates shall not, in any case, exceed  the  size  of  the  land  which  has  been,  if  any,  acquired from such industrialist or owners and  occupiers of warehouses and which form part  of Nazul land:

Provided  further  that  in  making  such  allotment, the Authority shall be advised by the  Land Allotment Advisory Committee;

(vi) to co-operative group housing societies, co- operative  housing  societies,  consumer  co- operative societies and co-operative societies of  industrialists on "first come first served basis."  

9. It will be clear from sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the  

Nazul Land Rules that the Authority may, in conformity  

with the plans, and subject to the other provisions of  

these rules,  allot  Nazul  land to  individuals  and other  

categories  of  persons.   Sub-rule  (2)  of  Rule  4  further  

provides  that  the  Authority  shall  in  conformity  with  

11

plans and subject to the rules dispose the Nazul Land  

by  auction  to  the  categories  of  institutions  named in  

clauses (a) to (g) in sub-rule 2 of Rule 4.  The Full Bench  

of the High Court has held in the case of Ramanand v.  

Union of India & Ors. (supra) that Rule 4 requires that  

the allotment of land shall be made in conformity with  

the plans and ‘plans’  means the Master Plan and the  

Zonal  Development  Plan  for  a  zone.   Thus,  there  is  

nothing in Rule 4 which envisages allotment of  Nazul  

land to different category of persons to indicate that the  

1961 Scheme has been incorporated in    Rule 4.  The  

Full  Bench  of  the  High  Court  has  also  held  in  the  

aforesaid decision that the word ‘may’ in sub-rule (1) of  

Rule 4 cannot be construed as ‘shall’ and discretion has  

been  vested  in  the  Authority  to  allot  land  to  the  

categories of persons mentioned in the sub-rule.

10. Rule 6 is titled “Allotment of  Nazul land at pre-

determined  rates”  and it  provides  that  subject  to  the  

other provisions of  the rules, the Authority shall  allot  

Nazul  land  at  the  pre-determined  rates  in  the  cases  

12

enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv) and clause (i) of Rule 6  

covers  cases  of  individuals  whose  land  has  been  

acquired for planned development of Delhi after the 1st  

day of  January,  1961 and which forms part  of  Nazul  

land.  Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 6, therefore, only provides  

that  when the  Authority  decides  to  allot  land  to  any  

individual under the 1961 Scheme, it shall allot at the  

predetermined rates.

11. This is the view that the Full Bench of the Delhi  

High Court has taken in Ramanand v. Union of India &  

Ors.  (supra).  The  relevant  portion  of  the  Full  Bench  

judgment is quoted hereunder:

“Rule  6,  in  reality,  controls  the  rates  of  premium  chargeable  only  in  those  cases  where  land  is  allotted  to  the  persons  mentioned therein.  In other cases, the rules  provide for sale of land at the market price  determined  by  the  highest  bid  on  public  auction of land.”

Thus, according to the Full Bench of the High Court in  

Ramanand  v.  Union  of  India  &  Ors.  (supra)  Rule  6  

controls the rates of premium chargeable only in those  

13

cases where land is allotted to the persons mentioned  

therein and in other cases, the rules provide for sale of  

land at the market price determined by the highest bid  

on public auction of land.   

12.   We are therefore of the considered opinion that Rule  

6(1) of the Nazul Land Rules is not really a rule which  

incorporates the 1961 Scheme, but it only provides that  

if  the  Authority  decides  to  allot  Nazul  land  to  the  

individuals eligible under the 1961 Scheme, then Nazul  

land shall be allotted at pre-determined rates and not at  

the  rates  determined  in  a  public  auction.   The  High  

Court  has  taken  an  erroneous  view  in  the  impugned  

order that Rule 6 of the Nazul Land Rules, which was  a  

statutory rule,  laid down conditions for allotment of land  

under the 1961 Scheme  and the conditions for allotment  

of  land  under  the  1961  Scheme  could  therefore  be  

amended by only statutory rules under Section 56 read  

with Section 22 of the Act.  In our considered opinion,  

Rule  6  of  the  Nazul  Law  Rules  did  not  stipulate  the  

14

conditions for allotment under the 1961 Scheme and the  

1961 Scheme being an administrative scheme could be  

amended  without a statutory rule made under Section  

56 read with Section 22 of the Act.

13. In  the  result,  the  appeals  are  allowed  and  the  

impugned order is set aside.  There shall be no order as  

to costs.      

……………………..J.                                                                   (R. V.   Raveendran)

……………………..J.                                                                   (A. K.   Patnaik) New Delhi, October 11, 2011.    

15