Supreme Court Resolves Land Dispute between NOIDA and Cooperative Society: Allotment of Flats Ordered (22 September 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 22 September 2022
Citation: (Not Available in Source)
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, Indira Banerjee J., K.M. Joseph J.

Can a long-standing land dispute between a development authority and a cooperative society be resolved by ensuring housing for its members? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, bringing an end to a protracted legal battle between the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and the Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti. The core issue revolved around the legality of land transfers to the society and the subsequent cancellation of allotments to its members. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indira Banerjee, and Justice K.M. Joseph, delivered the order.

Case Background

The case originates from land purchases made by the Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti (the Respondent-Society) from individual landholders. NOIDA contended that these transfers were illegal, citing two main reasons. First, they violated Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the U.P. Act), which led to the lands vesting in the State Government. Second, the land holdings exceeded the ceiling limits, also resulting in vesting with the State Government. The Respondent-Society argued that the Khodaiji Committee recommendations entitled their members to 40% of the acquired land as plots. NOIDA initially allotted land to 1754 members, who deposited ₹36 crores. However, after complaints of fake memberships, NOIDA cancelled these allocations, leading to further litigation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially ruled in favor of the Respondent-Society in Writ Petition No. 39842 of 2001, but this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Respondent-Society filed three writ petitions challenging the ceiling proceedings and a civil suit challenging the cancellation of allotments. The Trial Court allowed the civil suit, setting aside NOIDA’s cancellation letter but held that the Respondent-Society could not acquire land after 27.02.1988. NOIDA appealed this decision. The High Court’s interim order dated 19.11.2013 addressed the validity of land transfers under Section 154 of the U.P. Act and directed the District Magistrate to submit a report on the sale deeds. All these matters were then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. This section deals with restrictions on land transfers by Bhumidhars (landowners) to cooperative societies. The High Court’s interim order noted that transfers made in violation of Section 154 before the introduction of U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 were not automatically void. The court stated that only a suit for ejectment by the Gaon Sabha could be maintained. The High Court also observed that for the period between U.P. Act No. 37 of 1958 and U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 (3rd June, 1981), a declaration by the Assistant Collector was necessary to deem transfers void. The High Court also noted that no such declaration was made in respect of the sale deeds executed in favour of the Respondent-Society between 13th November, 1976 to 3rd June, 1981.

Arguments

Arguments of the Respondent-Society:

• The Respondent-Society argued that based on the Khodaiji Committee recommendations, 40% of the acquired land should be allocated to its members.
• They stated that 1754 members were initially found eligible, and they deposited ₹36 crores.
• They were willing to restrict their claim to the land held as of 03.06.1981, which was 99.28 bighas.
• The final list of eligible members was 1053, and after accounting for those who encashed their cheques or sold their interest, the number came down to 977.

Arguments of NOIDA:

• NOIDA contended that the transfers to the Respondent-Society were illegal under Section 154 of the U.P. Act and the Ceiling Law.
• They argued that the initial allotment to 1754 members was based on a flawed premise of 299 bighas.
• An inquiry by Dr. Prabhat Kumar revealed fake memberships, leading to the cancellation of allotments.
• They stated that 133 members sold their interest without permission, thus their transferees could not claim any benefit.
• NOIDA was willing to allot multi-storeyed flats to 844 members in Sector 43.

Arguments of the State:

• The State submitted that if the entitlement was restricted to 99 bighas, which the Society had purchased up to 03.06.1981, they would not have any objection.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. How to resolve the long-standing land dispute between NOIDA and the Respondent-Society.
2. Whether the 844 members of the Respondent-Society should be provided with apartments, and if so, how.
3. What should be done about the claims of the 133 persons who had acquired the interest of the erstwhile members.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the following legal provisions were considered:

• Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950: This section restricts land transfers by Bhumidhars to cooperative societies. The High Court’s interpretation of this section, particularly regarding transfers before 1976 and between 1976-1981, was a key factor.
• U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976: This amendment to the U.P. Act introduced changes to the restrictions on land transfers.
• U.P. Act No. 37 of 1958: This act was relevant to the determination of whether the transfers were void.
• U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982: This act was relevant to the determination of whether the transfers were void.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered the High Court’s interpretation of Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the relevant amendments, U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976, U.P. Act No. 37 of 1958 and U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982, to determine the validity of land transfers.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a desire to provide a final resolution to a long-standing dispute and to ensure that the members of the Respondent-Society, who had been waiting for homes for years, would finally get them. The court also considered the need to balance the interests of all parties involved, including NOIDA and the State. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that NOIDA had agreed to allot flats to 844 members.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court, exercising its power to do complete justice, directed NOIDA to provide apartments to 844 members of the Respondent-Society. The Court noted that NOIDA was agreeable to re-lay part of Sector 43 to accommodate a multi-storeyed complex. The Court also directed that the price of the land should be fixed by NOIDA according to its extant policy. The Court further directed the Respondent-Society to furnish a list of 844 members within two weeks, and NOIDA was to issue allotment letters within three months. Upon issuance of the allotment letters, all pending litigation was to be withdrawn. The Court also directed NOIDA to consider the claims of the 133 transferees and grant them similar benefits if satisfied.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the need to resolve a long-standing dispute and provide homes to the members of the Respondent-Society. The Court also considered the submissions of all parties and the fact that NOIDA was agreeable to allot flats. The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or reject any legal points. The decision was based on the unique facts and circumstances of the case, and it is not clear whether it would have any implications for future cases.

The Court stated, “In the premises, we exercise our jurisdiction and power to do complete justice in the matter and direct NOIDA to extend to said 844 persons the benefit, as indicated in the affidavit filed on behalf of NOIDA.” The Court further noted, “This direction will not only give quietus to the pending litigation between the parties but will also provide homes to said 844 persons and satisfy their long-standing needs.” The Court also said, “At this stage we must also deal with the claim of 133 persons who have acquired by transfer, the interest of the erstwhile members. NOIDA shall look into their claims and if satisfied, may grant them similar benefit as would be extended to 844 members.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ NOIDA is directed to allot multi-storeyed flats to 844 members of the Respondent-Society in Sector 43.
• ✓ The price of the land will be fixed by NOIDA according to its extant policy.
• ✓ The Respondent-Society must provide a list of 844 members within two weeks.
• ✓ NOIDA must issue allotment letters within three months.
• ✓ All pending litigation will be withdrawn upon issuance of allotment letters.
• ✓ NOIDA is to consider the claims of 133 transferees.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed:

• NOIDA to allot multi-storeyed flats to 844 members of the Respondent-Society in Sector 43.
• The price of the land to be fixed by NOIDA as per its policy.
• The Respondent-Society to furnish a list of 844 members within two weeks.
• NOIDA to issue allotment letters within three months.
• Pending litigation to be withdrawn upon issuance of allotment letters.
• NOIDA to consider the claims of 133 transferees.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of long-standing disputes involving land acquisition and cooperative societies, the Supreme Court can exercise its power to do complete justice by directing the allotment of housing to eligible members. The Court did not lay down any new legal principles or change the previous position of law. The decision was based on the unique facts of the case and the need to resolve the dispute and provide housing to the members of the Respondent-Society.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of NOIDA vs. Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti resolves a long-standing land dispute by directing NOIDA to allot multi-storeyed flats to 844 members of the Respondent-Society. This decision brings closure to years of litigation and ensures that eligible members will finally receive housing. The Court also directed NOIDA to consider the claims of 133 transferees. This judgment showcases the Supreme Court’s role in providing equitable solutions in complex land disputes.