S. B. Wad,j. ( 1 ) OUR task in these writ petitions is rendered easier byunion of India admitting through its counter-affidavit that no norms or guidelines were followed while making the impugned allotments. In these days ofrumours and alleged scandles the forthnight stand taken by Union of India issingularly welcome. Admission of a mistake creates hope for future. It hasfreshness of Rajnigandha as the name of one of the petitioner societies suggests. ( 2 ) THERE is prime land, about 70 acres, in the heart of South Delhi,covering part of Andrews Ganj and Sadiq Nagar. About 27 acres of land areallotted by the Union of India to nine respondent Cooperative Group Housingsocieties on 31. 3. 1986. Within short period of about eight-ten days the allotment letters were sent, the premium amount was paid and physical possessionwas given to the Societies. These petitions, filed by the other Cooperativesocieties challenge legality and properiety of the allotments of the nine societies. Apart from Union of India, the then Minister of Works and Housing and somesenior officials of the said Ministry have been joined personally as respondentsin the writ petitions. Broadly, the complaint of the petitioners is that theallotment in question is a case of mala fides, favourtism and abuse of authorityin favour of Ministers. ex-Ministers, M. Ps. , their relatives and high Government officials belonging to the concerned Ministry. The other ground of theirchallenge is that no norms or guidelines were followed in the said allotmentregarding the allotments arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of theconstitution. ( 3 ) GRABBING of material benefits and lands is now so widespread thatit has paralysed all legal processes and norms of private and public morality. No section of society is free from it. Mr. Bhandare, Advocate, was quite rightin referring to the discretionary allotment of plots to Judges and its abuse insome States. The reason is not always poverty or struggle for the roof overthe head. Otherwise, how do we explain large scale sales of the jhuggi jhonpriplots, allotted by the Government, and putting of new jhuggis at new sites bythe allottees. Some is the case of commercialisation and profit making ofhouses in walled city (to which the Slum Area Act applies), leases of nazul landin the prestigious area of New Delhi and illegal construction of farm houses on elite farms around Delhi. Some is the case of commercialisation and profit making ofhouses in walled city (to which the Slum Area Act applies), leases of nazul landin the prestigious area of New Delhi and illegal construction of farm houses on elite farms around Delhi. The legal process is further subverted by flooding the courts with petitions for protections of illegal gains and acquisitions. Lawful effort of the Lt. Governor at demolitions is thwarted every time bypolitical interference and by court stays. The real question to be answered byevery petitioner is whether he would decline an allotment unspuported by anynorm and which is an act of favouritism to him. It may sound as a paradox,but is all the same true. The courts are effective only if the deviations are marginal. But if they are wide spread and if there is no social reprobation, the judicialcontrol becomes empty and loses teeth. This enormous and pervading malignency,in the moral and political life of this country, is out of reach of thecourts, inspite of our boast that arms of law are very long. ( 4 ) BUT, this is not an excuse for ignoring the legitimate grievances. Asolution has to be attempted within the confines of law. We have a duty toprevent arbitrariness in Executive actions and transgression of law. Sincethe Union of India has partially conceded the petitioners claim on thiscount, we need not go to the other pleas of the petitioners. But Mr. Bhandare,advocate, and Mr. K. N. Bhatt, Advocate, have submuted that no reliancecan be placed on Government s affidavit dated 4th December, 1986 (partiallyconceding the petitioners claim) because earlier the Government had filedan affidavit, on 29. 4. 1986, justifying the allotment in question. We hadcalled for the original record in regard to these allotments. In view of the saidsubmissions for the counsel for respondents we have decided to take the factsfrom the original Government files in this case. ( 5 ) LARGE scale acquisition of land around Delhi was initiated by thecentral Government in 1959 for the purposes of planned development ofdelhi. To achieve this object, the Delhi Development Act was passed andthe Delhi Development Authority was created. On 2. 5. 1961 the then Ministerfor works and Housing took a policy decision that all the acquired landsshould be entrusted to the D. D. A. alongwith the responsibility of allotment ofresidential and commercial plots. To achieve this object, the Delhi Development Act was passed andthe Delhi Development Authority was created. On 2. 5. 1961 the then Ministerfor works and Housing took a policy decision that all the acquired landsshould be entrusted to the D. D. A. alongwith the responsibility of allotment ofresidential and commercial plots. It was decided that the Nazul lands whichwere being looked after by the land and Development Department of thecentral Government should not be allotted for the residential or commercialpurposes to individualls or cooperative societies. In 1972 a decision was takenat the Ministerial level imposing ban on allotment of any land in South Delhi. There was also a ban on allotment to cooperative societies in South Delhiimposed in 1981. One petitioner society and one respondent society requestedthe Central Government in 1981 for allotment of land in South Delhi. Theywere informed of the ban and were directed to approach DDA for allotmentof land elsewhere. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a notificationin 1983 inviting applications for registration from cooperative societies forallotment of land. Two thousand and nine cooperative societies applied andabout 1500 societies were registered by the Registrar in 1983. ( 6 ) AROUND the same time, some cooperative societies were formedwith Ministers and M. Ps. as its members. They made direct applications tothe then Works and Housing Minister for allotment of land in South Delhi. On 15. 10. 1984 the Land and Development Office informed the Works andhousing Ministry that there was no land available in South Delhi andwhatever chunks of land were available were to be utilised for the generalpool requirement of the Central Government employees. It was also clarifiedthat the Land and Development Department allots lands only to insitutionsand not to any individuals or cooperative societies. On 13. 11. 1984 the DDAalso informed the Ministry that no land was available in South Delhi. Theyalso informed that about 2000 acres of land would be available in West Delhiby March, 1985. ( 7 ) THE Central Government had leased out about 70 acres of landbetween Andrews Ganj and Sadiq Nagar in south Delhi Pinjra Pole Society. Their lease was terminated and eviction order under the Public Premises Actwas passed against the Society on 23. 9. 83. The order was challenged by thesociety in Delhi High Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissedthe writ petition. The Society filed a special leave petition in supreme Court (SLP No. 9103/1984 ). Their lease was terminated and eviction order under the Public Premises Actwas passed against the Society on 23. 9. 83. The order was challenged by thesociety in Delhi High Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissedthe writ petition. The Society filed a special leave petition in supreme Court (SLP No. 9103/1984 ). In the said special leave petition a counter-affidavitwas filed on behalf of the Union of India in October, 1984. The Governmentof India pleaded before the Supreme Court that : "the Union of India is in urgent need of this land which is situatedin the midst of the city bebind Andrews Ganj for construction ofgeneral Pool Staff Qaaters and other public buildings. "the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and directed that the land in questionbe handed over to the Central Government on or betore 30/05/1985. Thecentral Government took the possession of the land on 30/05/1985. ( 8 ) AFTER the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition of Pinjra Polesociety, the then Minister for Works and Housing (Urban Development),took the decision to allot the said land in South Delhi principally to thecooperative Societies of which the Ministers and M. Ps. were the members. On 9. 3. 1985 the said Minister made allotment of land to five such cooperativesocieties. Four of them are the respondents in the present writ petition. Originally the proposal was to hand over the said land to the DDA so that thedda makes the allotment according to its norms, but it was decided not toentrust the land to the DDA but that the Landd. O. should itself make theallotment. The allotment to five cooperative societies was made on 9. 3. 1985without formally superseding the Ministerial decision taken in 1961 and theban on allotment imposed in 1972 and 1981. As regards the price of land areference was made to the Finance Ministry. The Finance Ministry pointedout that the prices of land in South Delhi were fixed between Rs. 1200. 00tors. 2000. 00 per square yard in 1981 and considering the steep increase of pricesof land in Delhi it was necessary to re-determine market rates of land all overdelhi. The Finance Ministry also suggested that rates of land to be allottedto cooperative societies should also be revised in view of the wide gap betweensuch rates and the market value. 1200. 00tors. 2000. 00 per square yard in 1981 and considering the steep increase of pricesof land in Delhi it was necessary to re-determine market rates of land all overdelhi. The Finance Ministry also suggested that rates of land to be allottedto cooperative societies should also be revised in view of the wide gap betweensuch rates and the market value. The Ministry also suggested that theunearned income on the sale of the land by the allottees should be collectedat the beginning itself. The Ministry was, however pursuaded by referenceto the DDA prices that the proper rate for the said cooperative societies wouldbe Rs. 474. 00 per sq. yard. The Works and Housing Ministry, thereafter, fixedrs. 474. 00 per sq. yard as the rate for allotment to the said societies. ( 9 ) AFTER the initial allotment to five societies, allotment was made to fivemore societies. Three of them were the societies of which the M. Ps. were themembers. One society was a Society formed by officers and employees of theworks and Housing Ministry itself. ( 10 ) THE final notification for allotment of land to nine respondent cooperative societies was issued on 31. 3. 1986. The lay-out plan of the 70 acres landbears the same date, viz. 31. 3. 1986. The allotment was communicated toindividual societies on 2. 4. 1986. On 4. 4. 1986 the 1972 ban on allotment ofland in South Delhi was withdrawn by a formal order. Between 8 to 10 daysthe societies made the payments for the land and by 15/04/1986,possession of land was given to almost all Societies. ( 11 ) IN his affidavit dated 4. 12. 1986 filed by Shri A. K. Goyal. Dy. Landand Development Officer. Ministry of Urban Development, it was stated, : "1. That for the purpose of allotment of land to the societies,there had to be certain accepted norms such as first come firstserved basis , completion of formalities such as collection ofaffidavits etc. . 2. That from a perusal of the records it appears that thesocieties were not informed as to what norm is being followed forthe purpose of allotment of the land in question. 3. That. from the records, it appears that it was intended tofollow the principle of first come first served . . 2. That from a perusal of the records it appears that thesocieties were not informed as to what norm is being followed forthe purpose of allotment of the land in question. 3. That. from the records, it appears that it was intended tofollow the principle of first come first served . The said norm wasnot disclosed to the public at large so that they could know that theland will be allotted on the basis of said criteria. 4. That it has also been observed that in allotment of theland, to the societies, the principle of first come first served was notuniversally applied to all the societies who have been allotted land. XX XX XX5. That it was not known to the Government as to whowere the members of these cooperative societies while makingallotment but it was known to the Government that the membership of some of the societies comprised of Members of Parliament. After the land was allotted to the societies, the Land and Development Officer was directed to obtain the lists of members of thevarious cooperative societies to whom the land was allotted asverified by the Registrar. It was also made clear under the termsof the allotment that it was mandatory for the societies to furnishlists of the members duly certified by the Registrar, Cooperativesocieties. The upto date lists containing names of members of sixcooperative societies which are available with Land and Development Office are filed herewith. " ( 12 ) IN view of this affidavit, the counsel for the Union of India hardlyhad any argument to advance. The petitions were mostly argued by variouscounsel appearing on behalf of respondent coopetative societies, justifying theallotment in their favour. ( 13 ) APART from the facts admitted by Union of India in the affidavitdated 4. 12. 1986, there are many other facts and decisions disclosed in theoriginal file, perused by us. for which there is no rational explanation. Theytend to show that the public interest was relegated to a secondary position inthe decision making. ( 14 ) THE first question is as to how the land ear-marked for general poolhousing was allotted to the cooperative societies of M. Ps. and the cooperativesociety of the officials of the Urban Development Ministry. The Union ofindia filed a solemn affidavit before the Supreme Court in SLP. No 9103/1984that they urgently needed the land for construction of general pool staffquarters and other public buildings. and the cooperativesociety of the officials of the Urban Development Ministry. The Union ofindia filed a solemn affidavit before the Supreme Court in SLP. No 9103/1984that they urgently needed the land for construction of general pool staffquarters and other public buildings. How could a representation (in the formof a decision) made to the Supreme Court be side-lined between the dismissalof the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court and getting the actual possession of theland from the Pinjra Pole Society ? How could the utilisation of land forpublic purpose be converted to private purpose of the residential requirementsof few cooperative societies ? The allotments in question are thus hit by theprinciple of estoppel and detriment to public interest. It was submitted onbehalf of the Union of India that only 27 acres of land was allotted to therespondent societies, and about 43 acres of land was being utilised for thepurposes of general pool housing. The lay-out plan, however, speaks differently. After excluding community centre, neighbourhood parks, roads, etc. thegeneral pool housing will not have more than 17 to 18 acres. This factaggravates the situation further. ( 15 ) THE price of the land is fixed at Rs. 474. 00 per sq. yard. This isjustified by the Union of India and the respondents on the ground that the lowprice-on no profit no loss basis-is charged for encouraging cooperative grouphousing societies. In the first counter affidavit the Union of India has claimedthat this is a subsidised price. Mr. V. P. Singh, Advocate, appearing for oneof the respondent societies has submitted that cooperative societies is a well-recognised classification and even the directive principles of the Constitutionenjoin the State to encourage cooperative movement. The Finance Ministry hadstated that the unofficial figure of the market price in South Delhi is about Rs. 6thousand per sq. yard. The initial object of large scale acquisition of land indelhi was to arrest speculation in the land-prices. But, over the years the DDAas the Government agency itself has largely contributed to rocketing pricesthrough its method of selective auctioning of land in Delhi. The DDA has alsofixed rates of lands in different areas for the purposes of mopping up unearnedincome on the sales of land. In South Delhi areas, with which we are concerned, Rs. 4,000. 00yer sq. yard is fixed by the DDA as the notional price of land. The DDA has alsofixed rates of lands in different areas for the purposes of mopping up unearnedincome on the sales of land. In South Delhi areas, with which we are concerned, Rs. 4,000. 00yer sq. yard is fixed by the DDA as the notional price of land. In the face of these hard facts what is the rational justification for giving landto cooperative societies at 1/15th price of the market value? With theaddition of about lacs of population in Delhi every year, scarcity of land isbeing aggravated year to year. As a policy, DDA is not allotting plots of landto a single holder, but only to group housing societies. As between an ordinaryresident, who could not become a member of any society and a resident whois a member of the society, why should there be such high discrimination ofone to fifteen in the prince of land. Is there any rational principle in subsidizing the cooperative societies as a class, when it results into such a heavy lossto the public exchequer? The Directive Principles (Article 43) speaks of onlypromotion of industries run on the cooperative basis in rural areas and notthe housing cooperative societies. On the contrary Articles 15, 29 (2) and 46enjoin the State to promote with special care economic interest of weakersections of society and, in particular, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The State is also enjoined by Article 39 to distribute material resources of thecommunity so as to best subserve the common good. A cooperative housingsociety of weaker sections of the society can be given plots free or at a lowsubsidized rate, but not each and every, cooperative society. Suppose if 50 bigindustrialists come together and form a cooperative housing society would it bejustified to give them land on subsidized price on no profit no loss basis ? Merelybeing a cooperative society is not a rational criterion for classification forgiving valuable lands in South Delhi, almost for a song. One of the reasonsfor giving land to respondent cooperative societies and notusing it for generalpool housing, stated in the first affidavit of the Union of India, is shortageof funds for general pool construction with the Government. It this is aconsideration, then an effort should have been made by the Union of Indiato augment its resources by selling the land at market price which would havegenerated several crores of rupees for being utilised for general pool andhousing for weaker sections. It this is aconsideration, then an effort should have been made by the Union of Indiato augment its resources by selling the land at market price which would havegenerated several crores of rupees for being utilised for general pool andhousing for weaker sections. The Finance Ministry had, in fact, made thesuggestion on these lines but caved in at a subsequent stage. There is norational explanation visible on the file. In a recent decision Sachidanandpandey v. State of West Bengal (1987 2 SCC Pg. 295 at page 330) the Supremecourt has considered the earlier decisions in respect of arbitrariness in pricingof Government properties and has laid down the following conclusion : "on a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the bar thefollowing propositions may be taken as well established :state owned or public-owned property is not to be dealt withat the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain percepts andprinciples have to be observed. Public interest is the paramountconsideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest,when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property, is to sellthe property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Thoughthat is the ordinary rules, it is not an invariable rule. There maybe situations where there are compelling reasons necessitatingdeparture from the rule, but then the reasons for the departuremust be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be done which gives an appearance of bias, jobberyor nepotism. " ( 16 ) THE allotment of the lands in question to respondent cooperativesocieties at price of Rs. 474. 00 per sq. yard is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. ( 17 ) THE notings on the file disclose that the erstwhile Minister had onlythe cooperative societies of M. Ps. in his mind for making allotments of thisprime land in South Delhi. In the fact, the Minister had asked all thecooperative societies, who had ditectly applied to give the break-up ofmembership and in particular, of the number of M. Ps. The officials of theministry had, however, cautioned that if the allotment was made wholly tothe cooperative societies of M. Ps. that would be discriminatory. Thereafter,the membership number was increased in some societies to include non-MPs. In some societies, relatives of M. Ps. were also made members so as to lookthat the society is not only a society for M. Ps. The officials of theministry had, however, cautioned that if the allotment was made wholly tothe cooperative societies of M. Ps. that would be discriminatory. Thereafter,the membership number was increased in some societies to include non-MPs. In some societies, relatives of M. Ps. were also made members so as to lookthat the society is not only a society for M. Ps. Even assuming that thesociety of M. Ps. can be treated at par with societies of professionals, likelawyers and journalists, in the working out of the scheme some rationalprinciples must be followed. For example, how could the land be allotted atsubsidised rates to six or seven cooperative societies of M. Ps. , while there areonly one or two societies of one class of professionals ? How could relativesof the M. Ps. be clubbed with the M. Ps. ? Why should the relatives of them. Ps. be treated favourably as against the other residents of Delhi ? So also,way should the non-resident M. Ps. be preferred over the permanent residentsof Delhi who are in dire need of housing sites ? Mr. Bhandare, Senioradvocate, appearing for some respondents argued that Article 19 (l) (e) givesevery citizen right tv reside and settle in any part of the territory of India and,therefore, allotment to M. Ps. is justified. But, this right is available to everycitizen and not only to M. Ps. Then, why should there be a special treatment form. Ps. as against other citizens ? Further, should it not be ascertained fromthe M. Ps. whether they are going to permanently settle in Delhi or not ?otherwise the M. Ps. who do not want to settle in Delhi cannot be givena special treatment at the cost of other citizens who are or wish to bepermanent residents of Delhi. But, it is clear from the file that even in the classof cooperative societies of M. Ps. there is no equal treatment. One of suchcooperative society to whom the land was allotted alongwith four othersocieties, initially, is not in the final list of allotment. The said society hascomplained that different criteria were adopted by the Registrar of Cooperativesocieties while issuing registration certificates. For some, the certificate wasissued without final verification of membership and other formalities and thenames were forwarded to Central Government and DDA. while in case of others,registration certificates were delayed for want of verification of membershipand completion of other formalities. The said society hascomplained that different criteria were adopted by the Registrar of Cooperativesocieties while issuing registration certificates. For some, the certificate wasissued without final verification of membership and other formalities and thenames were forwarded to Central Government and DDA. while in case of others,registration certificates were delayed for want of verification of membershipand completion of other formalities. There are two societies of Governmentservants. One, of the officials of Urban Development Ministry proper andthe other of officials of the Land and Development Office. Both had appliedfor allotment in 1981 in South Delhi. They were directed to make applicationsto DDA because there was a ban of allotment in South Delhi ? Both societieswere allotted lands by the DDA in other parts of Delhi and took the possessionof the land. When they found that lands were being allotted to cooperativesocieties in South Delhi both the societies again applied for land in Southdelhi in lieu of land allotted to them. The cooperative society of the officialsof Urban Development Ministry proper, got the allotment in South Delhiwhile the other could not. That is how one society is the petitioner societyand the other society is the respondent society in the writ petition. Whileresisting the claim of the cooperative society of the officials of Landdo. inthese writ petitions, the Union of India took a stand that the petitioner societyhas no locus standi to file a writ petition because the land is already allottedto it in other parts of Delhi. ( 18 ) THE counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all other termsof allotment to Respondents are same as of the allotments made by the DDAto cooperative group housing societies, except two. In the normal DDA lease,the lessee is prohibited from transferring the land for the first 10 years, whilethere is no such restraint or bar in the terms and conditions of allotment torespondent societies. It is submitted that the non-resident M. Ps. are permittedto make huge profit by selling the land/flats. There is no effective answer tothis submission either from the Government or the respondent societies. Neither it is clear from the file as to whether the Government had applied itsmind to this aspect of the matter. If the land in question was entrusted to thedda and if DDA was to make the allotment, this normal condition of leasewould have been applicable to the respondent societies also. Neither it is clear from the file as to whether the Government had applied itsmind to this aspect of the matter. If the land in question was entrusted to thedda and if DDA was to make the allotment, this normal condition of leasewould have been applicable to the respondent societies also. ( 19 ) COUNSEL tor some of the respondent societies argued that even if thenorm of seniority is to be followed, their allotment cannot be challengedbecause of their seniority. We were not impressed by this argument for thereason that there is no objective material before us to show that the Registrarof Cooperative Societies has prepared the seniority list correctly. Evenotherwise, the allotments suffer from many infirmities and, therefore, we arenot inclined to give exclusive relief to some societies. ( 20 ) DR. Chitley, appearing for one of the respondent societies raised ageneral question as to whether existence of pre-determined norms is a (legal)condition precedent for discretionary allotment of Government lands. He hastried to draw support from section 22 of the Delhi Development Act relatingto Nazul lands. The Union of India has itself admitted that norms arenecessary in matters of allotment of land and that they had not followed suchnorms. The decision of the Supreme Court, cited above, makes it very clearthat in matters of disposal of public lands, if no norms are followed, it willsuffer from the vice of arbitrariness. ( 21 ) DR. Chitley and, thereafter, Mr. Bhandare, Advocate, submittedthat in case we are inclined to accept the writ petitions, we should direct thegovernment to lay down the norms, but final allotment should be supervisedby us, as is done by Supreme Court in some cases. Counsel for the otherrespondent society, Shri K. N. Bhatt submitted that we should be cautiousbecause, according to him, the norms laid down by the Supreme Court in thespecial quota allotment of maruti cars, has given rise to some misgivings. Inone of the petitions, the petitioner has submitted that we should treat thesewrit petitions like public interest litigation. We have our reservations. Iffrom the public interest litigation (handled by the Courts so far) there is onelesson it is this that the courts have no effective machinery for enforcementand issues of public concern cannot be resolved by threat of contempt ofcourt in each case. We have our reservations. Iffrom the public interest litigation (handled by the Courts so far) there is onelesson it is this that the courts have no effective machinery for enforcementand issues of public concern cannot be resolved by threat of contempt ofcourt in each case. We realise that the problem is too complex andstupendous for any Government to resolve, but if some rational norms arelaid down by the Government and are uniformly and impartially followedthe problem can be satisfactorily tackled. Instead of Judges taking over thefunctions of an administrator, it is more fruitful if the administrator followsjudicial methods of objectivity and impartiality. ( 22 ) THE allotment of lands to respondent societies suffers from arbitrariness and are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugnedorder dated 31. 3. 1986 and the individual allotments dated 2. 4. 1986 are setaside. Union of India should seriously reconsider whether the land in questionshould be allotted to the co-operative societies at all or whether the landshould be reserved for the general pool staff housing. In case it is decidedto allot the land to co-operative societies, it should be done in accordancewith the norms and guidelines laid down in the light of observations madeabove. We cannot accede to respondents prayer that their possession shouldnot be disturbed for six months, since Government have themselves acceptedlegal infirmity in the initial allotment. Union of India should take back thepossession immediately. ( 23 ) THE writ petitions are partly allowed. There shall be no order asto costs.