2006 (1) TMI 626 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity Of Allotment of lands measuring 20000 sq. feet and 8000 sq. feet - without issuing any advertisement - allotment having moreover been made for industrial purpose, was in contravention of the Master Plan drawn in terms of the provisions of the 1973 Act - whether any regulation has been framed by the authority for regulating the procedures for disposal of developed lands, houses, buildings and other structures - HELD THAT - The power of disposal of lands, buildings and other developmental works indisputably vests in the Town and Country Development Authority i.e. the JDA. We have, however, not been informed as to whether any regulation has been framed by the authority for regulating the procedures for disposal of developed lands, houses, buildings and other structures. However, the lands in question is a developed land. The right to dispose of such lands, therefore, vests in the JDA. Such right being subject to the rules made by the State, we may closely examine the provisions thereof. The right to transfer land on concessional terms, thus, is subject to two limitations, viz., (i) approval of the State is required therefor; and (ii) no lease on concessional terms shall be allowed for purposes other than charitable purposes such as hospital, educational institutions and orphanages; which implies that in a given situation a lease may be granted on concessional terms to any other institution but therefor sufficient and cogent reasons must be assigned. The JDA, therefore, only had requisite authority to initiate the proceedings for grant of lease of land on concessional terms wherefor only the previous approval of the State was required to be taken. The State, except grant of previous approval to the proposal of the JDA and ultimate grant of lease of its land on concessional terms, has no other role to play. Disposal of the authority land is, thus, within the domain of the JDA, subject only to the previous approval of the State Government. Both the State and the JDA had evidently been acting under some misconception. The Board was of the opinion that in relation to nazul land, the State is the final authority to allot land as the power of sanction lies within its domain. We have noticed hereinbefore that the State did not have any such power. The State, even in terms of Rule 3 of 1975 Rules has a limited role to play. However, there are certain subsequent events which should be taken note of. Whereas the impugned order in the civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12442 of 2003 was passed on 21.8.2002, the SLP was filed on 7.5.2003. During pendency of the matter, the JDA had issued a circular on 4.6.2003 to the Private Respondent herein asking him to deposit a sum of ₹ 26 lakhs. The said amount is said to have been deposited on 7.6.2003 whereupon a deed of lease has also been executed. It is stated that the Municipal Corporation granted permission for construction of the building on or about 30.7.2004 subject to the conditions mentioned therein. A notice was issued on 11.7.2003 by this Court. It is stated that the Private Respondent has sent invoices for machines worth ₹ 2 crores for which a sum of RS. 10 lakhs have been paid by way of advance. Submission of Mr. Tankha, in the aforementioned situation, is that the equities between the parties should be adjusted. We have noticed hereinbefore that on 11.7.2003 notice was issued in the matter. The counsel for Respondent was present on the said date. An order of status quo was present on the said date. The Respondent, therefore, had notice about the pendency o the special leave petition. It might have applied for and granted the permission for construction of building but we find no reason as to how without constructing any building, orders for delivery of machines should have been issued. It is not the case of the Private Respondent that they had started construction pursuant to or in furtherance of the permission granted in this behalf by Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur. The Appellant has brought to the notice of the High Court that a malady has been prevailing in the department of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the JDA. It may be true that the Appellant did not file any application questioning similar allotments but it is well-settled if an illegality is brought to the notice of the court, it can in certain situations exercise its power of judicial review suo motu. It is also well-settled that the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for perpetrating an illegality. Thus, the impugned judgments of the High Court cannot be sustained, but, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the question as regards allotment of land is left to the Jabalpur Development Authority. The Authority may consider the matter afresh for grant of such allotment in favour of the Private Respondents herein treating the applications filed by them either before it or before the State Government as fresh applications. Such applications must be processed strictly in terms of the provisions of the 1973 Act and the Rules framed thereunder as also keeping in view the Master Plan. Such a decision should be taken by the Competent Authority of the JDA at an early date preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The JDA shall return the amount deposited by the Private Respondents, if any, within four weeks from date. These appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent but in the facts and circumstances of this case there shall be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of land allotment to private respondents.
2. Compliance with statutory provisions and rules.
3. Role and authority of the State and Jabalpur Development Authority (JDA).
4. Validity of policy decisions and their implementation.
5. Impact of subsequent events and equitable considerations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Land Allotment to Private Respondents:

The appeals questioned the allotment of lands measuring 20000 sq. feet and 8000 sq. feet to private respondents by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The lands were situated in a commercial area under the Master Plan made by the JDA in terms of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 ("the 1973 Act"). The Appellant argued that the allotments were made without following the procedures laid down and without issuing any advertisement, thus violating the statutory provisions and being arbitrary and discriminatory.

2. Compliance with Statutory Provisions and Rules:

The lands in question were either acquired lands or nazul lands vested in the JDA. The JDA had the authority to allot plots only in terms of the rules and regulations framed under the 1973 Act. Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules requires the sanction of the State Government for the transfer of government land vested in or managed by the Authority. However, the allotments were made without following the statutory procedures, and the quantum of premium and annual rent was not fixed at the time of allotment, indicating non-compliance with the statutory provisions.

3. Role and Authority of the State and JDA:

The JDA, a statutory authority created under the 1973 Act, had the power to dispose of developed lands, houses, buildings, and other structures. The State's role was limited to granting previous approval for the JDA's proposals. The State's purported policy decision regarding land allotment was not in accordance with the 1973 Act or the rules framed thereunder. The State could not issue directions to the JDA beyond the scope of the statutory provisions, and any such directions were void and of no effect.

4. Validity of Policy Decisions and Their Implementation:

The State formulated a policy decision on 10.8.1995, which was issued by the Revenue Department and not by the Town and Country Planning Department. The policy decision was not in terms of the 1973 Act or the rules framed thereunder. The State's purported policy decision was ultra vires and could not be implemented. The allotments made under this policy decision were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, making them void and illegal.

5. Impact of Subsequent Events and Equitable Considerations:

During the pendency of the matter, the JDA issued a circular asking the private respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs, which was deposited, and a deed of lease was executed. The Municipal Corporation granted permission for constructing a building. However, the Supreme Court noted that the private respondent had notice of the pendency of the special leave petition and that the construction had not started. The Court held that the interest of justice would be served by directing the JDA to reconsider the matter afresh for grant of allotment in favor of the private respondents, treating their applications as fresh applications and processing them strictly in terms of the provisions of the 1973 Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the allotments made by the State were declared void and illegal. The JDA was directed to reconsider the matter afresh for grant of allotment in favor of the private respondents, strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and the Master Plan. The JDA was also directed to return the amount deposited by the private respondents within four weeks.