Supreme Court Quashes Discretionary Allotment of Land: Improvement Trust, Ropar vs. Shashi Bala (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 April 2023

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Can a land allotment, initially approved under a government’s discretionary quota, be valid if that very quota is later declared unconstitutional? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question in a case involving the Improvement Trust, Ropar, and a social worker, Shashi Bala. The core issue revolves around the legality of a land allotment made to Shashi Bala under a discretionary quota, which was later deemed invalid by a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. This judgment clarifies the implications of such rulings on prior approvals.

Case Background

In 1987, Shashi Bala, a social worker, applied to the Chief Minister of Punjab for a 500 square yard plot under his discretionary quota. The Government of Punjab approved the allotment on 11 February 1987, directing the Improvement Trust, Ropar, to allot a residential plot in the Giani Zail Singh Nagar Development Scheme at double the reserve price. This approval was subject to Shashi Bala submitting an affidavit and her Social Welfare Certificate. Shashi Bala claims to have fulfilled these requirements. However, the allotment did not materialize, leading her to raise the issue in local newspapers. The Trust responded with a press note on 10 January 1989, stating that her documents were sent to the concerned department. On 2 January 1989, the Government of Punjab informed Shashi Bala that her claim would be considered only after a plot became available, as no plot was readily available under the scheme.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Shashi Bala filed CWP No. 9737 of 1992 in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, seeking a direction to allot her a 500 square yard plot in the Giani Zal Singh Nagar Development Scheme. On 17 November 2006, a single judge of the High Court allowed her petition, noting that the government had approved the allotment and she had complied with the necessary formalities. The High Court directed the authorities to allot her a plot at the price fixed when the government initially approved the allotment. Aggrieved by this, the Trust filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 12 of 2008. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal on 23 January 2008, upholding the single judge’s decision. The High Court noted that the government had approved the allotment and that Shashi Bala had complied with all formalities.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, specifically Rule 4, which provides for reservation of residential plots. Rule 4 states:

“4.Reservation of residential plots and multi-storeyed houses: – (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 10, residential plots and multi-storeyed houses shall be reserved for allotment to the following categories of persons to the extent specified against each: –
Category of Persons Extent of reservations
(i) to (vi)……………………….
(vii) Non-Resident IndiansFour per cent of plots of 500 square yards size only
Provided………
Provided………
Provided that 5 per cent of the residential plots and multi-storeyed houses shall be allotted by the Trust with the approval of the Government to such category or class of persons and in the manner as the Government may from time to time keeping in view the socio-economic conditions of such persons specify.”

The third proviso to Rule 4 allows for 5% of plots to be allotted by the Trust with Government approval to specified categories. The Government of Punjab issued Notification No. 5/537/3CII-88/1604 on 31 January 1989, specifying the categories eligible under this discretionary quota. These included those affected by terrorism or riots, individuals distinguished in various fields, and armed forces personnel with gallantry awards. The notification also included a broad category for “any other deserving cases.”

The High Court’s Full Bench in *Dr. Amar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another* [AIR 2004 P&H 67] examined the validity of this discretionary quota in light of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Full Bench held that while reservations for specific categories were valid, the discretionary quota of 5% under the third proviso to Rule 4 was vague and arbitrary, violating Article 14. This decision followed an earlier Full Bench decision in *Anil Sabharwal Vs. State of Haryana* [PLR (1997) 116 P&H 7(FB)] which was upheld by the Supreme Court in *Harsh Dhingra Vs. State of Haryana* [(2001)9 SCC 550].

Arguments

Arguments by the Improvement Trust, Ropar:

• The Trust argued that the High Court’s decisions in favor of Shashi Bala were flawed because they failed to consider the Full Bench judgment in *Dr. Amar Singh* which had declared the discretionary quota under which Shashi Bala’s allotment was approved as unconstitutional.
• The Trust contended that Shashi Bala’s allotment was not complete as she had not been allotted a specific plot, and thus, she did not fall under the exceptions provided by the Full Bench judgment, which protected only those who had been allotted specific plots and had constructed houses before 06 June 1996.
• The Trust asserted that the government’s approval was merely a directive to the Trust to allot a plot, and the actual allotment was never finalized.

Arguments by Shashi Bala:

• Shashi Bala argued that the allotment of the plot in her favor was complete upon approval by the Government of Punjab.
• She contended that the government’s approval was sufficient to confer a right to the allotment of a plot and that she had complied with all the necessary formalities.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the core issue that the Court dealt with was:

1. Whether the High Court’s orders directing allotment of a plot to Shashi Bala could be sustained, given that the discretionary quota under which the allotment was approved was declared unconstitutional by a Full Bench of the same High Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Anil Sabharwal Vs. State of Haryana [PLR (1997) 116 P&H 7(FB)] – Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court: This case dealt with a similar discretionary quota in Haryana and declared it illegal. The Court relied on this case to highlight the earlier stance of the High Court on discretionary quotas.
• Harsh Dhingra Vs. State of Haryana [(2001) 9 SCC 550] – Supreme Court of India: This case upheld the Full Bench decision in *Anil Sabharwal*, with a minor modification regarding the effective date. The Court used this case to show that the earlier Full Bench decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
• Dr. Amar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another [AIR 2004 P&H 67] – Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court: This case specifically dealt with the discretionary quota under Rule 4 of the Punjab Rules of 1983 and declared it unconstitutional. The Court heavily relied on this case, as it directly addressed the issue at hand.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Rule 4 of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983: This rule provides for the reservation of residential plots and multi-storeyed houses. The Court examined the third proviso to this rule, which allows for a discretionary quota.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees equality before the law. The Court considered whether the discretionary quota violated this article.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Improvement Trust, Ropar, and set aside the judgments of the High Court. The Court held that the High Court had erred in directing the allotment of a plot to Shashi Bala, as the discretionary quota under which her allotment was approved had been declared unconstitutional by a Full Bench of the same High Court.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Anil Sabharwal Vs. State of Haryana [PLR (1997) 116 P&H 7(FB)]*: The Court noted that this case had declared similar discretionary quotas illegal.
• Harsh Dhingra Vs. State of Haryana [(2001) 9 SCC 550]*: The Court observed that this case upheld the earlier Full Bench decision, reinforcing the illegality of discretionary quotas.
• Dr. Amar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another [AIR 2004 P&H 67]*: The Court heavily relied on this case, which directly addressed the discretionary quota under Rule 4 of the Punjab Rules of 1983 and declared it unconstitutional.

The Court observed that the Full Bench judgment in *Dr. Amar Singh* had specifically held that the discretionary quota of 5% under the third proviso to Rule 4 was vague, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court noted that Shashi Bala’s allotment had not been finalized, as she had not been allotted a specific plot. The Court also stated that she did not fall under the exceptions provided by the Full Bench judgment, which protected only those who had been allotted specific plots and had constructed houses before 06 June 1996. The Court emphasized that the government’s approval was merely a directive to the Trust to allot a plot, and the actual allotment was never completed.

The Supreme Court stated, “Though Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel, would contend that the allotment of a plot in favour of Shashi Bala stood complete upon approval by the Government of Punjab, his contention cannot be countenanced as the letter dated 11.02.1987 of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Local Government, Government of Punjab, clearly stated that the Government had merely approved the allotment of a residential plot admeasuring 500 square yards and directed the Trust to allot an identified plot to her under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1983.”

The Court further noted, “Therefore, the act of identifying and allotting a specific plot was to be undertaken by the Trust and it was only approval that had been conferred by the Government. That is how Shashi Bala herself understood it, as is clear from her prayer in her writ petition. Therefore, allotment of an identified plot in favour of Shashi Bala did not crystallize by the date of the Full Bench judgment in the year 2003 and remained stagnant at the stage of the Government’s approval.”

The Supreme Court concluded, “Notwithstanding the same, the directions issued contrary to the said Full Bench judgment, which practically stood affirmed by this Court, cannot now be accepted or acted upon.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the discretionary quota under which Shashi Bala’s allotment was approved had been declared unconstitutional by a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Court emphasized that the Full Bench’s decision in *Dr. Amar Singh* was binding and that the High Court had erred in not considering it. The Court also considered that Shashi Bala had not been allotted a specific plot and did not fall under the exceptions provided by the Full Bench judgment. The Supreme Court was also influenced by the fact that the government’s approval was merely a directive and not a final allotment. The Court also noted that the decision in *Harsh Dhingra* upheld the Full Bench decision in *Anil Sabharwal*, reinforcing the illegality of discretionary quotas.

Key Takeaways

• Discretionary quotas for land allotment, if deemed unconstitutional, cannot be the basis for valid allotments.
• A mere approval for allotment by the government is not sufficient; a specific plot must be allotted for the allotment to be complete.
• Judgments by Full Benches of High Courts are binding and must be considered by lower courts.
• Allotments made under a discretionary quota that has been declared unconstitutional are invalid unless they fall under specific exceptions.
• The case highlights the importance of adhering to constitutional principles in land allotment policies.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, except to set aside the orders of the High Court and stated that the parties shall bear their own costs.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an allotment of land made under a discretionary quota, which is subsequently declared unconstitutional, cannot be upheld. The judgment reinforces the principle that a mere approval for allotment is not sufficient, and a specific plot must be allotted for the allotment to be complete. This judgment also reiterates the binding nature of Full Bench judgments of High Courts. There is no change in the previous position of law but the judgment clarifies the implications of a discretionary quota being declared unconstitutional on the allotments made under it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Improvement Trust, Ropar vs. Shashi Bala* underscores the importance of constitutional validity in land allotment processes. By setting aside the High Court’s orders, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that allotments made under discretionary quotas deemed unconstitutional cannot be sustained. The judgment clarifies that a mere approval for allotment is insufficient; a specific plot must be allotted. This ruling has significant implications for land allotment policies and reinforces the binding nature of Full Bench judgments of High Courts.

Category

Parent Category: Land Law

Child Category: Land Allotment

Child Category: Discretionary Quota

Child Category: Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983

Child Category: Rule 4, Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983

Parent Category: Constitutional Law

Child Category: Article 14, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Improvement Trust, Ropar vs. Shashi Bala case?

A: The main issue was whether a land allotment made under a discretionary quota could be upheld after the discretionary quota itself was declared unconstitutional.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court decided that the land allotment could not be upheld because the discretionary quota under which it was made was declared unconstitutional by a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Court set aside the High Court’s orders directing the allotment of the plot.

Q: What is a discretionary quota in land allotment?

A: A discretionary quota is a provision that allows the government to allot a certain percentage of land to specific individuals or groups at its discretion, often without a public auction or draw of lots.

Q: What is the significance of a Full Bench judgment?

A: A Full Bench judgment is a decision made by a larger panel of judges in a High Court. It is binding on all lower courts and benches of the same High Court.

Q: What does the judgment mean for future land allotments?

A: This judgment means that land allotments made under discretionary quotas that are deemed unconstitutional are invalid. It emphasizes the need for transparency and fairness in land allotment processes and the importance of adhering to constitutional principles.

Q: If a person has received an approval for a land allotment, is the allotment complete?

A: No, the Supreme Court clarified that a mere approval for allotment is not sufficient. A specific plot must be allotted for the allotment to be complete. The approval is just a directive to the authority to make the allotment.

Q: What was the role of Article 14 of the Constitution in this case?

A: Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, was central to the case. The Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court declared the discretionary quota unconstitutional because it violated Article 14 by being vague and arbitrary.