New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed the
allotment of land made to an individual in Ghaziabad 42 years
ago by the then Chief Minister on the ground that he had no
authority to make such a recommendation.
A bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar held
that the land was alloted on the recommendations of the Chief
Minister on a representation made by the allottee Manohar Lal,
bypassing other statutory authorities.
In this case, Lal was alloted a commercial piece of land
in Ghaziabad Sector 3N on December 27, 1979 which was
challenged by certain aggrieved persons. The land was alloted
to Lal in lieu of the acquisition of his land by the
authorities for some public purpose.
Under the rules, Lal and other allotees were entitled to
only alternative residential plots, but he was alloted a
Quashing the allotment, the apex court said, "Any
allotment made in favour of Manohar Lal so far, had been
illegal as the application could not have been entertained by
the Chief Minister and further, (the) appellant could not get
allotment in commercial area.
"The Land Policy provided only for allotment of land in
residential area," the bench said.
The apex court said that Lal also did not disclose true
facts of the case during the 40 years of the litigation.
"We are of the considered opinion that Shri Manohar Lal
did not approach the court with disclosure of true facts, and
particularly, that he had been allotted the land in the
commercial area by GDA on the instruction of the Chief
Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
"It is a fit case for ordering enquiry or initiating
proceedings for committing criminal contempt of the court as
the parties succeeded in misleading the court by not
disclosing the true facts," the bench observed.
The apex court said it did not want to pass any adverse
orders for various reasons.
"Our experience has been that the so-called
administration is not likely to wake up from its deep slumber
and is never interested to redeem the limping society from
such hapless situations.
"We further apprehend that our pious hope that
administration may muster the courage one day to initiate
disciplinary/criminal proceedings against such applicants/
erring officers/employees of the authority, may not come true.
"However, we leave the course open for the State
Government and GDA to take decision in regard to these issues
and as to whether GDA wants to recover the possession of the
land already allotted to these applicants in commercial area
contrary to the Land Policy or value thereof adjusting the
amount of compensation deposited by them, if any," the bench