Nigam Colony Dhakka Quarters Karamchari Parishad (Regd.) Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17454 of 2000
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 18703-18704 of 2000
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 18703-18704 of 2000
Petitioner: Nigam Colony Dhakka Quarters Karamchari Parishad (Regd.)
Respondent: Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17454 of 2000
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 18703-18704 of 2000
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 18703-18704 of 2000
Judges: M.B. SHAH & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 20, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 226,136 with Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Section 200 – Sale of houses constructed by Corporation at Azad-pur, Dhakka – Matter covered by judgment in B.S. Khurana’s case (JT 2000 (10) SC 607) – Even otherwise, if construction was under scheme, ownership vested in local body which was free to sell the houses. Held that corporation cannot be forced to sell the houses. If it decides to do so, then procedure under Section 200 was to be followed.
Held:
Presuming that the flats are constructed as per the Low Income Group Housing Scheme, yet the petitioners would not get any right to purchase the said flats or to compel the Corporation to sell the same to them. The scheme provides for grant of loan assistance by the Central Government to the extent of 80% of the actual cost of the flats including land subject to the maximum of Rs. 2800/- per house. Clause 8 of the said scheme specifically provides that in case of construction of the houses by local bodies, “the owner-ship of these houses will vest with the local bodies which may rent them out to their low paid staff. The local bodies are however, free to sell these flats outright or on hire-purchase basis to their low paid staff”. This clause leaves no doubt that the ownership of the houses constructed under the scheme by the local bodies remains with such bodies. It is the discretion of the Corporation to rent them out or to sell outright or on hire-purchase basis to their low paid staff. Hence, it cannot be said that the houses which were constructed under the scheme are bound to be sold by the Corporation to its employees. (Para 4)
For dispo-sal of the property belonging to the Municipal Corporation, the Corporation is required to follow the provisions of Section 200 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Admittedly, in the present case also, provisions of Section 200 of the Act are not complied with. (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. B.S. Khurana and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others (JT 2000 (10) SC 607) (Para 1)
2. Nirmal Kumar Jain and Other v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another (39(1989) DLT 517) (Para 2)
2. Nirmal Kumar Jain and Other v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another (39(1989) DLT 517) (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. These petitions arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi, which was challenged before this Court by filing SLP (C) No. 13639/2000 etc. and those SLPs were dismissed by order dated 21.9.2000 (B.S. Khurana and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others (JT 2000 (10) SC 607)) It is apparent that the questions involved in these petitions are covered by the said judgment.
2. However, learned senior Counsel Mr. Gopal Subramaniam and Dr. A.M. Singhvi submitted that the petitioners are residents of Azadpur and Dhakka colonies and their case is similar to those residents of Nimri municipal colony, to whom the flats are allot-ted on the basis of direction given by Delhi High Court. They referred to decision of Delhi High Court in Nirmal Kumar Jain and Other v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another (39(1989) DLT 517) and submitted that the quarters in Azadpur, Dhakka and Nimri municipal colonies were constructed under a Government scheme which provided that after construction of the quarters, the said quarters were to be sold to the employees. It is, therefore, contended that the decision rendered in B.S. Khurana’s case (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
3. In our view, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners required to be rejected on the ground that for dispo-sal of the property belonging to the Municipal Corporation, the Corporation is required to follow the provisions of Section 200 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Admittedly, in the present case also, provisions of Section 200 of the Act are not complied with.
4. Further, presuming that the flats are constructed as per the Low Income Group Housing Scheme, produced as ‘Annexure P1’ to the petition, yet the petitioners would not get any right to purchase the said flats or to compel the Corporation to sell the same to them. The scheme provides for grant of loan assistance by the Central Government to the extent of 80% of the actual cost of the flats including land subject to the maximum of Rs. 2800/- per house. Clause 8 of the said scheme specifically provides that in case of construction of the houses by local bodies, “the owner-ship of these houses will vest with the local bodies which may rent them out to their low paid staff. The local bodies are however, free to sell these flats outright or on hire-purchase basis to their low paid staff”. This clause leaves no doubt that the ownership of the houses constructed under the scheme by the local bodies remains with such bodies. It is the discretion of the Corporation to rent them out or to sell outright or on hire-purchase basis to their low paid staff. Hence, it cannot be said that the houses which were constructed under the scheme are bound to be sold by the Corporation to its employees. Further once the ownership vests in the Corporation and if the Corporation decides to sell the said houses, it has to follow the procedure pre-scribed under Section 200 of the Act.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the case of Nimri colony, the Corporation had passed the resolution and on the basis of the said resolution the High Court has given direction in favour of the residents of the said colo-ny, therefore, in the case of the present petitioners, who are residents of Azadpur and Dhakka colonies, High Court ought to have followed the said decision. In our view, because of some special facts if High Court has directed transfer of the said quarters in favour of residents of the said colony it would not mean that Corporation can be compelled to transfer the ownership of the quarters in violation of statutory provisions. Further, High Court passed the order on the basis of the fact that resolution no. 937 of 1979 passed by the Corporation was restricted only to the Nimri colony and in favour of non-municipal employees. No such benefit was given by the said resolution for the residents of Azadpur and Dhakka colonies. Hence, in such cases there is no question of discrimination.
6. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. However, at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the time granted by the High Court to vacate the premises is extended upto 31.12.2000 subject to the filing of the usual undertaking by the residents of the quarters of the aforesaid two colonies in this Court within two weeks from today.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. These petitions arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi, which was challenged before this Court by filing SLP (C) No. 13639/2000 etc. and those SLPs were dismissed by order dated 21.9.2000 (B.S. Khurana and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others (JT 2000 (10) SC 607)) It is apparent that the questions involved in these petitions are covered by the said judgment.
2. However, learned senior Counsel Mr. Gopal Subramaniam and Dr. A.M. Singhvi submitted that the petitioners are residents of Azadpur and Dhakka colonies and their case is similar to those residents of Nimri municipal colony, to whom the flats are allot-ted on the basis of direction given by Delhi High Court. They referred to decision of Delhi High Court in Nirmal Kumar Jain and Other v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another (39(1989) DLT 517) and submitted that the quarters in Azadpur, Dhakka and Nimri municipal colonies were constructed under a Government scheme which provided that after construction of the quarters, the said quarters were to be sold to the employees. It is, therefore, contended that the decision rendered in B.S. Khurana’s case (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
3. In our view, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners required to be rejected on the ground that for dispo-sal of the property belonging to the Municipal Corporation, the Corporation is required to follow the provisions of Section 200 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Admittedly, in the present case also, provisions of Section 200 of the Act are not complied with.
4. Further, presuming that the flats are constructed as per the Low Income Group Housing Scheme, produced as ‘Annexure P1’ to the petition, yet the petitioners would not get any right to purchase the said flats or to compel the Corporation to sell the same to them. The scheme provides for grant of loan assistance by the Central Government to the extent of 80% of the actual cost of the flats including land subject to the maximum of Rs. 2800/- per house. Clause 8 of the said scheme specifically provides that in case of construction of the houses by local bodies, “the owner-ship of these houses will vest with the local bodies which may rent them out to their low paid staff. The local bodies are however, free to sell these flats outright or on hire-purchase basis to their low paid staff”. This clause leaves no doubt that the ownership of the houses constructed under the scheme by the local bodies remains with such bodies. It is the discretion of the Corporation to rent them out or to sell outright or on hire-purchase basis to their low paid staff. Hence, it cannot be said that the houses which were constructed under the scheme are bound to be sold by the Corporation to its employees. Further once the ownership vests in the Corporation and if the Corporation decides to sell the said houses, it has to follow the procedure pre-scribed under Section 200 of the Act.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the case of Nimri colony, the Corporation had passed the resolution and on the basis of the said resolution the High Court has given direction in favour of the residents of the said colo-ny, therefore, in the case of the present petitioners, who are residents of Azadpur and Dhakka colonies, High Court ought to have followed the said decision. In our view, because of some special facts if High Court has directed transfer of the said quarters in favour of residents of the said colony it would not mean that Corporation can be compelled to transfer the ownership of the quarters in violation of statutory provisions. Further, High Court passed the order on the basis of the fact that resolution no. 937 of 1979 passed by the Corporation was restricted only to the Nimri colony and in favour of non-municipal employees. No such benefit was given by the said resolution for the residents of Azadpur and Dhakka colonies. Hence, in such cases there is no question of discrimination.
6. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. However, at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the time granted by the High Court to vacate the premises is extended upto 31.12.2000 subject to the filing of the usual undertaking by the residents of the quarters of the aforesaid two colonies in this Court within two weeks from today.
