9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Regulations under the repealed Ordinance. 2. Authority of the Municipal Corporation to demand land transfer free of cost. 3. Interpretation of the agreements and conditions of the sanctions. 4. Constitutionality of Regulation 5(3)(iv) under Article 31 of the Constitution. 5. Jurisdiction of the writ court in deciding disputed facts and law. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Regulations under the Repealed Ordinance: The Coloniser argued that the Regulations being relied upon by the respondents stood repealed by Act 53 of 1955. The High Court found that Section 24 read with Section 30 of the General Clauses Act saved and continued the operation of the Regulations, notwithstanding the repeal of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court did not find sufficient material to conclusively determine this issue due to the absence of primary documents. 2. Authority of the Municipal Corporation to Demand Land Transfer Free of Cost: The Coloniser contended that neither the Acts concerned nor the Regulations authorized the Municipal Corporation to take over vacant plots of land earmarked for public utility services free of cost. The High Court held that Regulation 5(3)(iv) required the Coloniser to transfer its rights in these plots free of cost to the Authority. The Supreme Court found that the evidence of agreements and the terms and conditions of the sanctions were absent from the record, making it difficult to conclusively determine the authority of the Municipal Corporation. 3. Interpretation of the Agreements and Conditions of the Sanctions: The Coloniser argued that Clause (6) of the agreements provided for the transfer of open sites reserved for public utility services at a price determined on a no-profit basis, not free of cost. The High Court held that the Coloniser was estopped from going back on its undertaking and that a fiduciary relationship in the nature of a trust came into existence. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's findings were based on abstract considerations without the necessary factual foundation, making it hazardous to determine the points involved. 4. Constitutionality of Regulation 5(3)(iv) under Article 31 of the Constitution: The Coloniser argued that Regulation 5(3)(iv) was hit by Article 31 of the Constitution and was void. The High Court held that Article 31 was not attracted as the residuary interest left with the Coloniser was only a right of management of the trust in respect of these lands. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this issue due to the absence of primary facts and documents. 5. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court in Deciding Disputed Facts and Law: The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases where basic facts are disputed and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved, the writ court is not the proper forum for seeking relief. The High Court should have dismissed the writ petition on this preliminary ground without entering upon the merits of the case. The Supreme Court set aside the findings of the High Court and dismissed both the writ petition and the appeal, allowing the appellants to seek their remedy by a regular suit. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's determination was premature due to the absence of firm and adequate factual foundation. The writ petition and the appeal were dismissed with costs, and the appellants were advised to seek their remedy through a regular suit. The Coloniser conceded that all "open spaces" set apart for roads, streets, public parks, public lawns, etc., shown in the sanctioned layout plans in these colonies vest in the Municipal Corporation free of cost. However, the Coloniser reserved the right to dispute whether a particular plot was set apart as an "open space" or as an "open site" meant for a public utility building.
|
