Supreme Court Orders Allotment of Shops at Appellants’ Risk: Om Prakash Dhabai vs. State of Rajasthan (2017)

Date of the Judgment: November 14, 2017
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J.
Can a court order the allotment of land despite potential conflicts with a master plan? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the allotment of shop spaces. The Court allowed the allotment of shops to the appellants, but with the condition that they would be liable to be evicted if the master plan was implemented. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

This case involves a dispute over the allotment of a plot of land, as per a letter dated May 6, 1997, issued by the Commissioner (Head Quarters), Jaipur Municipal Corporation. The appellants, Om Prakash Dhabai and another, had been in a prolonged litigation regarding this allotment. The matter reached the Supreme Court due to ongoing disputes and delays.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court, during a hearing, noted the submission of the petitioners’ counsel that vacant shops were available in S-Block. However, the counsel for the respondents stated that this space was actually designated for parking under the master plan. The petitioners’ counsel argued that the allotment should not be denied based on the potential implementation of the master plan, as they would face the consequences if it occurred. The court then adjourned the matter to January 20, 2017, for further instructions.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and implementation of the allotment letter dated 6.5.1997 issued by the Commissioner (Head Quarters), Jaipur Municipal Corporation. There are no specific legal provisions cited in the source.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

• Appellants’ Argument:
  • The appellants argued that vacant shops were available in S-Block and should be allotted to them.
  • They contended that even if the master plan was implemented, they would face the consequences, and this should not be a reason to deny the allotment.
  • They expressed their willingness to accept the allotment at their own risk, meaning they would be liable for eviction if the master plan was implemented.
• Respondents’ Argument:
  • The respondents argued that the space where the shops were located was earmarked for parking under the master plan.
  • They implied that the allotment should not be made because it would violate the master plan.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the appellants could be allotted the shops despite the space being earmarked for parking under the master plan.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

No authorities (cases or legal provisions) were cited in the judgment.

Judgment

The Court ordered the allotment of shops to the appellants, accepting their submission that they were willing to take the shops at their own risk. This means they would be liable to be evicted if the master plan was implemented. The court also clarified that the appellants would have to pay the usual charges levied from similarly situated persons. The allotment was to be in terms of the original allotment letter dated 6.5.1997.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the appellants’ willingness to accept the allotment at their own risk. This indicates that the court prioritized resolving the prolonged litigation while ensuring that the appellants were aware of the potential consequences of the master plan implementation. The court also considered the fact that the appellants were seeking allotment as per the letter dated 6.5.1997, and that they were willing to pay the usual charges.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The appellants were willing to accept the allotment at their own risk.
• The court aimed to resolve the prolonged litigation.
• The allotment was to be in terms of the letter of original allotment dated 6.5.1997.

“The appeal is hence disposed of in terms of the order, as above, and the submission of the counsel is recorded.”

“It is further made clear that allotment will be in terms of the letter of original allotment dated 6.5.1997.”

“Needless to say that the appellants shall be liable to pay the usual charges which have been levied from the similarly situated persons.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court ordered the allotment of shops to the appellants, but with the condition that they would be liable for eviction if the master plan was implemented.
• The appellants must pay the usual charges levied from similarly situated persons.
• The allotment will be in terms of the original allotment letter dated 6.5.1997.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the allotment of shops to the appellants, subject to the condition that they would be liable to be evicted if the master plan was implemented. The court also directed that the appellants should pay the usual charges levied from similarly situated persons.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the court can order allotment of land even if it conflicts with a master plan, provided the allottee accepts the allotment at their own risk and is willing to face the consequences of the master plan’s implementation. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by ordering the allotment of shops to the appellants. This allotment was conditional on the appellants’ acceptance of the risk of eviction if the master plan was implemented. The decision highlights the court’s effort to balance the rights of the appellants with the need to adhere to urban planning regulations.