2013 (2) TMI 673 - SC - Indian Laws

Order of release of Land - Land acquired by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation for industrial development - Maintainability of a writ petition, filed based on charges of discrimination - Held that - It is a settled legal proposition that acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged at a belated stage. In the instant case, the earlier writ petition filed by the society and the khatedars jointly, was dismissed by the High Court only on the ground of delay. This Court upheld the said judgment and order, while granting the said parties liberty to challenge the acquisition afresh, on the ground of discrimination alone.Thus, a party seeking relief on the ground of discrimination must take appropriate pleadings, lay down the factual foundation and must provide details of the comparable cases, so that the court may reach a conclusion, whether the authorities have actually discriminated against that party; and whether there is in fact any justification for discrimination, assessing the facts of both sets of cases together. This Court has on various occasions dealt with the similar situation and explained as where the writ petition is maintainable. (See Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal 1975 (8) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT , U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow, v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1995 (7) TMI 423 - SUPREME COURT , Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India & Ors. 2000 (12) TMI 891 - SUPREME COURT and Dr. Manju Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2004 (11) TMI 339 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Inescapable conclusions - The schemes floated by the State Government (knowing well that acquiring land after the issuance of Section 4 Notification would be void), indicates a sorry state of affairs. Such orders have been passed without realizing that administration does not include mal-administration - The circulars issued by the State Government, being inconsistent with the policy and the law regarding acquisition, cannot be taken note of. Issuance of such circulars amounts to committing fraud upon statutes, and further, tantamounts to colourable exercise of power. The State in exercise of eminent domain acquires the land. Thus, before completing the acquisition proceedings, it should not release the land in favour of some other person who could not have acquired title over it at any point of time - The land had been acquired for industrial development and thus, cannot be permitted to be used for residential purposes. Therefore, the demand of the respondent-society cannot be held to be justified - Decided in favour of appellants.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of land acquisition proceedings.
2. Locus standi of the respondent society.
3. Allegations of discrimination in land release.
4. Legality of agreements to sell post-Section 4 notification.
5. Jurisdictional issues regarding filing of writ petitions.
6. Adherence to government policies and circulars.
7. Equitable principles in issuing writs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Land Acquisition Proceedings:
The land in question was notified under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, for industrial development by RIICO. The acquisition process included issuing a declaration under Section 6, taking possession of the land, and assessing its market value. The High Court initially dismissed the acquisition challenge due to delay and latches, and the Supreme Court upheld this dismissal, allowing only a limited scope for further challenge based on discrimination.

2. Locus Standi of the Respondent Society:
The society entered into an agreement to sell with the original landowners after the Section 4 Notification, which did not create any title in favor of the society. The Supreme Court emphasized that any sale or agreement post-notification is void against the government. Therefore, the society lacked the standing to challenge the acquisition proceedings, as reiterated in various judgments (e.g., Gian Chand v. Gopala & Ors., Jaipur Development Authority v. Mahavir Housing Coop. Society).

3. Allegations of Discrimination in Land Release:
The society claimed discrimination, arguing that other lands were released from acquisition. However, the Supreme Court noted that Article 14 does not perpetuate illegality or fraud. The society failed to provide evidence that it was similarly situated to those whose lands were released. The court highlighted that any claim of discrimination must be substantiated with proper pleadings and comparable cases.

4. Legality of Agreements to Sell Post-Section 4 Notification:
The agreement to sell entered into by the society post-notification was void. The Supreme Court cited multiple precedents affirming that any transfer or encumbrance post-notification is invalid. This principle was reiterated in cases like Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors. and Har Narain (Dead) by Lrs. v. Mam Chand (Dead) by LRs.

5. Jurisdictional Issues Regarding Filing of Writ Petitions:
The initial writ petition was filed at the Jodhpur Bench, whereas the land and relevant orders were situated in Jaipur. The Supreme Court expressed doubts about the petition's bona fides and whether it was filed in good faith. The court stressed that writ petitions should be filed in the appropriate jurisdiction to maintain their sanctity.

6. Adherence to Government Policies and Circulars:
The society relied on government policies allowing land release if construction existed before the Section 4 Notification. However, the society's agreement to sell was post-notification, and no construction existed at that time. The Supreme Court emphasized that executive instructions without statutory force cannot override the law. Circulars inconsistent with statutory provisions amount to a fraud on statutes and colorable exercise of power.

7. Equitable Principles in Issuing Writs:
The court underscored that writs are issued to enforce established legal rights and promote substantial justice. In this case, the society's demand lacked merit as it did not demonstrate any legal right to the land. The court also noted that the High Court failed to compare the society's situation with others whose lands were released and did not consider objections raised by RIICO.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The court concluded that the respondent society had no legal basis to challenge the acquisition proceedings or claim discrimination. The land, acquired for industrial development, could not be used for residential purposes as demanded by the society. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal principles, statutory provisions, and equitable considerations in land acquisition matters.