BALRAJ CHIBBAR Vs. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the writ petitions involve the same controversy. With the consent of the learned counsel for parties writ petition No. 27450 of 1991. Lt Col Balraj Chibbar v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority has been made the leading case and from it necessary facts will be stated hereinafter.

(2.) In 1971 a Co-operative Society know as Kendriya Sarkari Seva Sahkari Bhoomi Tatha Grab Nirman Samiti Ltd. (herein after referred to as the Society) was farmed by various persons most of belonged to the service of Central Government. The Society was registered under U. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in November 1971 and between 1973 and April 1976 it purchased about 1250 Bigha of land situate in there villages of district Ghazibad. On 1-5-1976 New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinbfter referred to as the NOIDA) was constituted under U. P. Industrir-l Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Development Act) The land which was purchased by the Society was acquired for NOIDA in 1976-77. Acquision of its land was challenged by the Society and ultimately the matter was settled between the Society and the NOIDA, according to which only those members of the Society to be given plots by the NOIDA who were bona fide member as on 1-5-1976, which fact is to be duly certified by the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Housing Society. Meerut In pursuance of the said agreement list of 1088, members of (be Society was submitted by the Society to the NOIDA. The NOIDA sent this list or the Deputy Registrar of the Housing Society for verification. The Deputy Registrar after verification and inspection submitted report to the NOIDA declaring all the 1088 members as genuine and bona fide with reference to the cut off date (1-5-1976). Thereafter the p!ofs were allotted to those members and from December 1985 to October 1986 lease deeds of the plots were executed by the NOIDA in favour of aforesaid members including the petitioners. As required by the NOIDA the members deposited 20 per cent of the land determined by it. From 1986 to 1989 the instalments were also paid by these persons.

(3.) It appears that the Executive Director of the Society in his letter dated 20-7-1990, written to the Chairman NOIDA regarding extension of time to the allottees, has mentioned that 142 members of the Society acquired membership after 1-5-1976 In view of above statement in the said letter NOIDA issued notice to the 142 members including the petitioners asking them to show-cause as to why leases executed in their favour be not cancelled under clause (b) ot Pt. III of the lease deed on (he ground that they were executed in iheir favour on account of mis-representation and mis-statement. Petitioners in reply to the said notices submitted their representations. The Executive Diret r of the Society thereafter sent a letter dated 6-12-1990 to the Chairman NOIDA mentioning therein that these members had paid their admission fee before 1-5-1976 and as per record of the Society they are the members with effect from the date they .deposited their admission fee. It appears that enquiry was all made by the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and in his report (Annexure-21 to the writ petition) he has stated that 142 members are genuine and bona fide members of the Society having been enrolled before 1-5-1976 the Executive Director has also clarified his observation made iu his earlier letter dated 20-7-1990 by letter dated 7-9-1991, mentioning therein that while writing the earlier letter full facts were not brought to his notice on account of which it was inadvertently written therein that 142 members were enrolled after 1-5-1976, whereas correct facts are that they were enrolled before 1-5-1976. Pending consideration of their representations against show-cause notices petitioners filed a writ petition No 18157 of 1991 before this Court which was dismissed on 11-7-1991 with the observations that the concerned authority shall take decision within the specified time. Thereafter representations were filed afresh before NOIDA and vide his order dated 20-5-1991 Chairman-cum-Chief Executive Officer NOIDA had rejected the representations holding that 142 members including the petitioners acquired their membership after 1-5-1976 and they filed false affidavits at the time of execution of the lease deeds. By the same order the leases which were executed in favour of petitioners in 1985-86 were determined and the amount deposited by tbem as cost of the land, was forfeited. In the last paragraph of the order cancelling the leases it was however, mentioned that the petitioners are at liberty to seek revocation of the order in case they are able to produce some cjgent and convicing evidence in support of their enrollment as members of the Society before 1-5-1976. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.