9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Possession of the disputed land. 2. Interpretation of "public utility" under Article 226(6) of the Constitution. 3. Legitimacy of the acquisition for public utility. 4. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 5. Timeliness and expediency of the stay application. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Possession of the Disputed Land: The petitioner, Bharat Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur, filed a stay petition under Section 151 C.P.C. to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession of Khasra Nos. 87 and 88 in Jaipur. The respondents, including the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) and Rajasthan Housing Board, opposed this, asserting that the disputed land was already in their possession. The court noted that the respondents had substantiated their claim with documents showing possession was taken on 7-2-1977. The petitioner's contention of only "paper possession" was not accepted, as the documents remained undisputed. The court concluded that possession was with the respondents and any challenge to this could only be decided during the final hearing of the writ application. 2. Interpretation of "Public Utility" under Article 226(6): The petitioner argued that the acquisition was not for "public utility," citing the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Talasani China Gang! Reddy v. Dist. Collector, Anantpur, which interpreted "public utility" narrowly. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the distinction between "public purpose" and "public utility" was without real difference. The court held that if a purpose serves a section of the public, it qualifies as a public purpose and similarly, a section of people's utility can be considered public utility. The court emphasized that public utility should be understood in a generic sense, meaning any work or project useful to the public at large, even if utilized by a section of the community. 3. Legitimacy of the Acquisition for Public Utility: The court examined the notification of acquisition, which stated that the land was required for the planned development of Jaipur City. The court found no challenge to the genuineness or bona fides of this requirement. The court concluded that the housing scheme, which included construction of houses, roads, and amenities like parks, was meant for public use and thus qualified as a project of public utility under Article 226(6). The court also referenced various cases, including State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and H.P. Khandelwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which supported the view that housing for the homeless and rehabilitation of refugees were considered public purposes. 4. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury: The court noted that the petitioner had not constructed any houses on the disputed land, meaning no substantial injury of an irreparable nature could be claimed. The balance of convenience favored the respondents, as the Housing Board had already invested significantly in the project. The court also mentioned that the petitioner's delay in challenging the notification (after about two years) made it inexpedient to stay the implementation of the housing scheme during the pendency of the writ application. 5. Timeliness and Expediency of the Stay Application: The court observed that the petitioner had challenged the notification of acquisition after a significant delay, which affected the expediency of granting a stay. The court highlighted that any technical violations alleged by the petitioner could be addressed by the respondents through fresh proceedings if necessary. Therefore, it was not in the interest of justice to stay the implementation of the housing scheme. Conclusion: The court dismissed the stay petition, vacating the interim stay. The court held that the acquisition of land for the housing scheme was for public utility and fell within the blanket prohibition against granting stay or injunction under Article 226(6) of the Constitution. The court also found that the balance of convenience and the lack of irreparable injury to the petitioner further justified the dismissal of the stay application.
|
