PETITIONER:
H.U.D.A. & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ANIL SABHARWAL & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/12/1997
BENCH:
B.N. KIRPAL
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
[ With I.A.Nos.4 & 5/97 in C.A.No. 8637/97 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11238/97 ]
JUDGMENT Verma, CJI
Leave granted limited to the question indicated in our order dated 7.7.9
The grievance of the appellants is that our order dated 7.5.97 in Sanjay Jain Vs. Anil Sabharwal & Ors. [ (SLP(C) .../97 ( CC.4325/97 ] has been misconstrued to mean that the legality of allotment of plots made under the discretionary quota even prior to 31.10.89 has been directed by that order to be reopened and examined. It is submitted that such a misinterpretation results from a misconstruction of certain words in that order, namely:
"We are constrained to observe that
the accountability of the
authorities who are responsible for
making these arbitrary allotments
which have been rightly cancelled
by the High Court needs to be
examined after their identity is
fixed in an appropriate proceeding.
In addition, it is also expedient
that any remaining allotments of
the kind which have been cancelled
by the High Court should also be
treated also be treated alike. This
exercise has not bee performed by
the High Court in the preset case.
It is, therefore, expedient that as
a follow up action, the High Court
should proceed to complete the
exercise."
It is sufficient for us to clarify that by the above order dated 7.5.97 this Court upheld cancellation of the allotments out of the discretionary quota made after 31.10.89 and it was further said that any remaining allotments of the same kind should be treated alike to complete the exercise. In other words, our order dated 7.5.97 contained the direction to treat all allotments out of the discretionary quota made after 31.10.89 without any exception, in order to examine the accountability of the concerned authorities as also to avoid any discrimination between allotters subsequent to 31.10.89. That order was, therefore, concerned entirely with the allotment made after 31.10.89 and did not refer to any allotment prior to that date. We consider it necessary to say so to avoid any possible misinterpretation by this Court’s order dated 7.5.97.
We may, however, add that the only question for examination by this Court in Sanjay Jain vs. Anil Sabharwal’s case being all the allotments made subsequent to 31.10.89, our order is also not to be construed as inhibiting any separate/independent action in respect of allotments for any other period including period prior to 31.10.89. The appeal is disposed of with this clarification.