9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 1169 - SC - Indian LawsPrayer to quash inter-departmental communications - certain members of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti had sold their land to M/s Savy Homes (P) Ltd. who in turn further sold the land to the present appellants vide sale deed dated 15th June, 2006. Appellants further claim to have applied for sanction of plan for construction of buildings and the same was accorded by the statutory authorities under the Municipal Law. Appellants also claim to have developed the land - as submitted possession of the land in dispute had never been taken by the State and after commencement of the Act 1999, the proceedings stood abated. Therefore, the question of interference with the land in dispute does not arise - whether the appellants have any justifiable cause to approach the court? HELD THAT - No proceedings had ever been initiated against the appellants by the authorities under the Act 1976. Secondly, the State authorities, the respondent herein, failed miserably to perform their statutory duties and it appears that they could not muster the courage to take the actual physical possession of the land in dispute in spite of issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act 1976 in the year 1993. More so, the so-called authorities could issue notices under Section 10 of the Act 1976 after a lapse of twelve years as the assessment of surplus land became final in 1981 itself. Such an indifferent attitude on the part of the authorities is not commendable rather it is condemnable, but that does not mean that court should decide only the effect of repealing Act 1999 in these proceedings at the behest of the appellants in absence of the original tenure holders and subsequent transferees inasmuch as in the fact-situation of this case where the appellants, for the reasons best known to them, did not consider it proper to place either of the sale deeds on record. Examination of the correctness of the aforesaid finding at the behest of the appellants is not desirable for the reasons that they did not disclose even the date of notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Act 1976. More so, the user of the land could not be changed in view of the provisions of Section 10(4) of the Act 1976. The alleged transfer by the recorded tenure holders in favour of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti for the purpose of construction of residential houses was totally illegal. The sale deed in favour of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti dated 20th April, 1982 is not on record. There is nothing to establish whether the sale deed was a genuine, forged or fabricated document. Merely making a statement that it was a registered sale deed and, therefore, it was genuine, cannot be accepted. There is no such presumption in law. There is nothing to ascertain who had been the transferors and who were the transferees therein. None of the subsequent sale deeds is on record. Therefore, the genuineness of either of the alleged sale deeds can be tested. There are no pleadings as under what circumstances the sale deeds have been executed and as to whether the original tenure holders have received any consideration. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. The present appeal does not present any special feature warranting exercise of equitable discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the appellants. The equity jurisdiction is exercised to promote honesty and not to frustrate the legitimate rights of the other parties. It is settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironical to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. In the instant case, as we have observed that the alleged sale deed dated 20th April, 1982 in favour of Mayur Sahkari Avas Samiti has been a void transaction, all subsequent transactions have merely to be ignored.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of inter-departmental communications challenged by appellants. 2. Whether the State had taken possession of the disputed land under Section 10(6) of the Act 1976. 3. Legal status of the land transfers post-assessment orders under the Act 1976. 4. Maintainability of the writ petition filed by the appellants. 5. Equity and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Inter-Departmental Communications: The appellants challenged the inter-departmental communications dated 30th June 2008 and 18th July 2008, seeking their quashing and a direction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession of the land. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading to this appeal. 2. Possession of Land Under Section 10(6) of Act 1976: The appellants argued that the State never exercised its power under Section 10(6) of the Act 1976 to take possession of the land, and thus, with the commencement of the Act 1999, the proceedings abated. The Court found merit in this argument to some extent, holding that all proceedings under the Act 1976 abated if the State had not taken possession before the Act 1999 came into force. This view aligns with precedents like Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., and others. 3. Legal Status of Land Transfers Post-Assessment Orders: The Court noted that the original tenure holders did not challenge the ex-parte assessment orders, which declared the land surplus. Consequently, any transfer of the surplus land by the tenure holders, including the sale to Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti, was null and void under Sections 5 and 10 of the Act 1976. The subsequent transfers to M/s Savy Homes (P) Ltd. and then to the appellants were also deemed void. The appellants failed to provide necessary sale deeds or evidence to establish the genuineness of these transactions. 4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The Court found the writ petition not maintainable as it sought to quash internal communications between government officers, which cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition. However, since the High Court decided the case on merits, the Supreme Court also addressed the merits. 5. Equity and Discretionary Jurisdiction Under Article 226: The Court emphasized that the power under Article 226 is discretionary and should be exercised to advance justice and public interest. The appellants did not present a compelling case for equitable relief, failing to disclose essential facts and documents. The Court reiterated that if an order is bad in its inception, it cannot be validated by subsequent actions. The appellants' claim lacked merit as the initial transfer was void, rendering all subsequent transactions non-est. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The appellants failed to establish their case, and the transactions in question were void ab initio. The Court emphasized the importance of complete pleadings and evidence in seeking relief under Article 226, and the necessity of maintaining the integrity of legal processes and equitable principles.
|
