1979 (11) TMI 256 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Possession of the disputed land.
2. Definition and scope of "public utility" under Article 226(6) of the Constitution.
3. Legitimacy of the acquisition for public utility.
4. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
5. Timeliness and procedural aspects of the stay application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Possession of the Disputed Land:
The petitioner, Bharat Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., filed a stay petition to restrain the State of Rajasthan, Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), the Land Acquisition Officer, and the Rajasthan Housing Board from interfering with its possession over Khasra Nos. 87 and 88 in Jaipur. The respondents asserted that the land was already in possession of the Housing Board, making the stay application misconceived. The court found that the possession had been taken by the respondents on 7-2-1977, as substantiated by documents from the UIT, and thus, the petitioner was not in possession of the land.

2. Definition and Scope of "Public Utility" under Article 226(6):
The petitioner argued that the acquisition was not for "public utility" but merely for a public purpose, citing the Andhra Pradesh High Court's interpretation in Talasani China Gang! Reddy v. Dist. Collector, Anantpur. The respondents contended that the housing activity of the Housing Board, a state-owned corporation, is a project of great public utility. The court disagreed with the Andhra Pradesh High Court's narrow interpretation and held that "public utility" should be understood in a broader sense, encompassing any work or project beneficial to the public, even if it serves only a section of the community.

3. Legitimacy of the Acquisition for Public Utility:
The court examined the notification of acquisition, which stated that the land was required for the planned development of Jaipur City. The court found that the housing scheme, which includes the construction of houses, roads, and amenities like parks, serves the public at large. The court cited various precedents, including State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan, to support the view that providing housing to the homeless is a public purpose and, by extension, a public utility.

4. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury:
The court noted that no houses had been constructed on the disputed land, and thus, the petitioner could not claim any substantial or irreparable injury. The balance of convenience favored the respondents, as staying the housing scheme would cause inordinate delays and potentially force the Housing Board to abandon the project, which had already seen significant financial investment.

5. Timeliness and Procedural Aspects of the Stay Application:
The court observed that the petitioner had filed the writ application challenging the acquisition notification after a delay of about two years. The court found it inexpedient to stay the implementation of the Housing Board Schemes during the pendency of the writ application, especially given the technical nature of the alleged violations. The court emphasized that even if the petitioner's technical pleas succeeded, the respondents could still take fresh proceedings to address any procedural lacunae.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the stay application, emphasizing that the acquisition of land for the Housing Board project constitutes a public utility under Article 226(6) of the Constitution. The court vacated the interim stay, noting that the petitioner was not in possession of the land, the balance of convenience favored the respondents, and the stay application was procedurally delayed.