SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Saghirahmad and Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.

RP(C) 873-874/1997 in CAs Nos. 16942-43/1996. D/d. 1.2.2000.

Angarki Coop. Housing Society Ltd. - Petitioner

Versus

State Of Maharashtra And Ors. - Respondent

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 137 - Review - Held - Review of the judgment in Angarki Coop. Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra (1997)9 SCC 713 not warranted under the circumstances of the instant case - Whether observation of Supreme Court that no authority ever applied its mind to the requirements of Clause 11 of the Govt. resolution dated 12.5.1983, is correct - Held - There were other points which were considered one of which related to the availability of the plot in isolation for allotment - Plots which were allotted to the petitioner were carved out of Plot No. 211 and therefore, it could not be said that there was a plot available for allotment in isolation.

[Para 2]

Case Referred :-

Angarki Coop. Housing society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

ORDER

S. Saghirahmad, J. - We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in these review applications. On 3.8.1999 during the course of hearing of these applications the following order was passed:

Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment (since reported in Angarki Coop. Housing society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and has stated that the averments made therein are factually incorrect. He has specially drawn our attention to the following observations :

We are of the view that even if the contention of Mr. Sibal is accepted the reasoning of the High Court would still be fully applicable in the facts of the present case. No authority from the Collector to the Chief Minister ever applied his mind to the requirement of Clause 11 of the Resolution. It was nobody's case that the plot was isolated or isolated procedure was to be followed. All the authorities /officers concerned were acting under the influence of Ranganathan and nobody was even conscious of Clause 11 of the Resolution or any other statutory provision. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in reaching the finding that there has been a patent violation of the provisions of Clause 1 of the Resolution. Only when there is an isolated plot, the question of following any isolated procedure in disposing of the plot would arise. In the present case, there was neither an isolated plot nor was any isolated procedure followed. What was done was wholly arbitrary and as such cannot be sustained. We see no ground to interfere with the findings of the High Court, quoted above, on the first point, It is pointed out that these observations are factually incorrect inasmuch as Clause 11 of the Resolution was considered by the Government at every stage when the application of the Society was processed. We direct the state Government of Maharashtra, the respondent No. 1, to file an affidavit in this regard annexing therewith all the relevant documents to indicate as to how the application of the society was dealt with and processed and whether Clause 11 of the Resolution was considered by the state Government. The affidavit may be filed within two weeks. All original records which were placed before the High Court shall also be placed before us.

2. In order to substantiate that the Government was all along conscious of the requirement of Clause 11 of the Resolution dated 12.5.1983, an affidavit duly sworn in by Jagdish Kashinath Gharat, under Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, Govt. of Maharashtra has been filed in which a reference has been made to the entire correspondence which has already been considered in the main judgment. It is contended that the Government was all along conscious of Clause 11 and therefore, the observation made by this Court in the main judgment as to the non-application of mind to Clause 11 of the Resolution is not correct. But that by itself does not conclude the matter. The fact remains that there are other points which were considered one of which related to the availability of the plot in isolation for allotment. From the facts it appears that plots which were allotted to the petitioner were carved out of plot No. 211 and therefore, it could not be said that there was a plot available for allotment in isolation as held in the main judgment. We do not find any reason to review the judgment.

3. The applications for review are dismissed.

.