SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore
Vs
President, Indore Development Authority
Appeal (Civil) 1005 of 2006 (Arising Out of Slp (C) No. 6390/2002)
(Arijit Pasayat and S. H. Kapadia, JJ)
07.02.2006
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal upholding the view of the
learned Single Judge that appellant is not entitled to benefits flowing from
Resolution No.9 dated 31.1.1986 of the respondent.
The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:
The Indore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority')
adopted certain guidelines allowing the Housing Co-operative Societies to
utilize the land owned by them by making plots for construction of houses for
the benefit of their members. The relevant guidelines contained in the Circular
dated 31.1.1986 are as follows:
"(1) Only those societies shall be taken into consideration which have
got themselves registered as per the law by purchasing the land prior to the
publication of the Declaration of Section 50(2) of the Authority in respect of
the scheme.
(2) Those societies will also be taken into consideration which have got
themselves registered after the publication of the Declaration of Section 50(2)
but the application was moved by them before the Competent Authority for
obtaining rebate under the Urban Land Ceiling Act prior to the above law.
(3) This will be mandatory for availing the benefit of these facilities that while entering into an advance agreement with the Authority, the Society should hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the concerned land itself to the Authority. and it will be at liberty to move for revision etc. for enhancing the compensation. With regard to the handing over of the possession if there arises any court case or any other dispute then this facility would not be available. If any tenant or sub tenant or any other person holds the possession of the land then it will be the responsibility of the Society that it should make available the vacant possession to the Authority by removing them from the land. In the event of being not so, this scheme of allotment of land shall not be implemented."
The appellant was denied the benefit of the Circular on the ground that it did
not fulfill the requisite conditions. Writ Petition (W.P. No.755 of 1994) was
filed by the appellant praying for appropriate directions to the Authority to
grant it the benefit of the Circular dated 31.1.1986. A learned Single Judge
dismissed the Writ Application noticing that the appellant did not fulfill the
requisite conditions. It was noted that the appellant claiming to be one of the
interested societies applied to the Authority on 9.11.1987 and 28.12.1987. The
Authority called upon the appellant to furnish certain details. By order of the
Authority dated 1.10.1993 the benefit was declined. It was also noted by the
High Court that the Circular in question dated 31.1.1986 was withdrawn by
resolution No.93 dated 14.5.1993. Though a stand was taken by the appellant
that certain other societies similarly situated were granted the benefit, the
High Court noted that they stood on a different footing. Learned Single Judge
noted that the appellant was not the owner of the land and it only claimed to
be the potential purchaser having purportedly entered into certain agreements.
That being so, it was held that the appellant had not acquired any legal right to
get the benefit in terms of the Circular dated 31.1.1986. A Letters Patent
Appeal was filed before the High Court which by the impugned order upheld the
view of the learned Single Judge. It was specifically noted by the Division
Bench that as the appellant- Society was not the owner of the land, it was not
entitled to the benefit.
In support of the appeal, Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel submitted
that the real import of the Resolution is that the society should have got a
tangible interest in the property. Appellant had entered into agreements for
purchase of the land on 18.1.1982 and, therefore clearly fulfilled the
conditions. In fact possession was taken on 5.5.1992. It was also pointed out
that in the case of some others who had similarly situated the benefit had been
extended. According to him, denial of appellant in such circumstances would
amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short
the 'Constitution').
In response, learned counsel for the respondent- Authority submitted that both
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have rightly noticed that the
appellant did not fulfill the requisite conditions and, therefore, was not
entitled to any relief.
First Clause, as quoted above, requires that only those societies were to be
considered which had got themselves registered as per law by purchasing land
prior to the publication of the Declaration of Section 50(2) of the Madhya
Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short the 'Adhiniyam'). Stand
of the learned counsel for the appellant that what was mandatory was the
registration and not the ownership of the land is clearly untenable. The
conditions are cumulative i.e. (a) the society has to be registered; and (b) it
must purchase the land prior to the publication of Declaration of Section 50(2)
of the Authority in respect of the scheme. The second condition was admittedly
not fulfilled. Clause 3 is also relevant. It provides that it will be mandatory
for the society for availing the benefit of the scheme to hand over a vacant
and peaceful possession of the concerned land to the Authority while entering
into an advance agreement with the Authority. In other words, the advance
agreement could be entered into but at that point of time the vacant and
peaceful possession of the concerned land was to be handed over to the
Authority. The appellants could not have done so because it was neither the
owner nor in possession of the concerned land. It is to be noted that there is
scope for advance agreement. It has been in that context specifically noted in
Clause (3) that so far as handing over possession is concerned if there are
court cases or any other dispute then the facility regarding handing over
possession would not be availed. Therefore, the view expressed by the High
Court is clearly in order.
So far as the allotment to non-eligible societies is concerned even if it is
accepted, though specifically denied by the Authority, to be true that does not
confer any right on the appellants. Two wrongs do not make one right. A party
cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction
should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right,
but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters, there is no
discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article
14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the
concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold.
It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a
par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in
some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the appellant
cannot strengthen its case. It has to establish strength of its case on some
other basis and not by claiming negative equality. (See Union of India v.
International Trading Co. .
Looked at from any angle, the appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct. No costs