9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to entertain the writ petition. 2. Validity of the notification issued by the State Government of Rajasthan for land acquisition. 3. Legality of the ad-interim exparte prohibitory order passed by the Calcutta High Court. Summary: 1. Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court: The primary issue was whether the service of notice u/s 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, at the respondents' registered office in Calcutta, was sufficient to invest the Calcutta High Court with jurisdiction to entertain a petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action neither wholly nor in part arose within the territorial limits of the Calcutta High Court. The entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land u/s 52(1) of the Act arose within the State of Rajasthan, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at the Jaipur Bench. The mere service of notice in Calcutta did not give rise to a cause of action within that territory unless it was an integral part of the cause of action. 2. Validity of the Notification: The respondents owned land in Jaipur, which was notified for acquisition by the State Government of Rajasthan for a public purpose. Despite participating in the proceedings before the Special Officer, Town Planning Department, Jaipur, the respondents did not raise any objections regarding the power and authority of the State Government to acquire the land. The notification dated February 8, 1984, issued by the State Government u/s 52(1) of the Act, became effective upon its publication in the official Gazette, and the land vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. 3. Legality of the Ad-Interim Exparte Prohibitory Order: The Supreme Court expressed distress over the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court issuing a rule nisi and passing an ad-interim exparte prohibitory order, which brought the entire acquisition proceedings to a standstill. The Court noted that such arbitrary exercise of power by the High Court at public expense reacts against the development and prosperity of the country and is detrimental to the national interest. The Court emphasized the need for High Courts to determine the extent of their territorial jurisdiction before making such interlocutory orders. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed with costs. The impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court dated March 13, 1984, issuing a rule nisi and the ad-interim exparte prohibitory order were set aside, and the proceedings before the Calcutta High Court were quashed. The costs were quantified at Rs. 5,000.
|
