2015 (12) TMI 1866 - SC - Indian Laws

Compulsory acquisition of lands for the Indian Army for its Field Firing Range in the year 1981 - grant of 15% developed residential land in lieu of compensation which, as perceived by the oustees, had been promised by the Urban Development Department of the State Government by its proclaimed policy dated 13.12.2001 - HELD THAT - The Respondents have utterly failed to abide by a public policy upon which, the Appellant had altered their position and had suffered immense prejudice. The persistent denial to the Appellants of their right to the developed land in lieu of compensation and that too without any legally acceptable justification, has ensued in manifest injustice to the Appellants over the years. Neither have they been paid just compensation for the land acquired nor have they been provided with the developed land in place thereof, as assured. They are thus predominantly entitled for the remedial intervention of this Court to ensure fair, just, efficacious, tangible and consummate relief in realistic terms. If fairness is an indispensable and innate constituent of natural justice, this imperative indubitably has to inform as well the judicial remedy comprehended. In the overwhelming factual scenario, as obtains in the instant case, refusal to grant the relief to which they are entitled, would amount to perpetuation of gross illegality, unjustness and unfairness meted out to them. The textual facts demand an appropriate response of the judicial process to effectuate the guarantee of justice, engrafted in the preamble of the Constitution reinforced by the canons of equity. The remedy indeed has to be commensurate to the cause and the prejudice suffered. The invocable judicial tools, predominantly in the form of a writ of mandamus, and the plentitude of the powers of constitutional courts, and more particularly, this Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution are assuredly the potential redressal aids in fact situations akin to the one in hand - A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is intended to supply deficiencies in law and is thus discretionary in nature. The issuance of writ of mandamus pre-supposes a clear right of the applicant and unjustifiable failure of a duty imposed on an authority otherwise obliged in law to imperatively discharge the same. As the nature and extent of the power indicates, there can be no straight jacket formula, for its exercise nor there can be any fetter thereto, it being plenary in nature. The invocation of this power is to reach injustice and redress the same, if it is not feasible otherwise to achieve this avowed objective. In doing so, this Court acts in its equity jurisdiction to balance the conflicting interests of the parties and advance the cause of administration of even handed justice. The purport and purpose of this power being justice oriented and guided by equitable principles, it chiefly aims at the enforcement of a public duty, if not forthcoming on legitimate justification ensuing in oppressive injustice, militating against the constitutional ordainment of equality before law and equal protection of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and entrenched as are, among others, in the invaluable right to life envisioned in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The failure to discharge an obligatory duty defined by public policy without any justification in disregard thereto viewed in the context of the sacrosanct content of human rights in Article 300A is an inexcusable failure of the state to discharge its solemn constitutional obligation, the live purpose for its existence. The predominant facts herein, justifiably demand a fitting relief modelled by law, equity and good conscience. Thus, the elaborate preface. The Appellants are entitled to be allotted their quota of 15% developed land in the terms of policy/circular dated 13.12.2001 in one or more available plots at Vidyadhar Nagar, Gokul Nagar, Truck Terminal and Vaishali Nagar as enumerated by them in their affidavit dated 17.8.2015. The Respondents are hereby directed to accommodate them accordingly. The Respondents would allot the developed land as per policy decision dated 13.12.2001 to the Appellants at the places indicated hereinabove without fail and within a period of six weeks herefrom - the appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Adequate reparation for compulsory land acquisition.
2. Entitlement to 15% developed residential land in lieu of compensation.
3. Validity and enforceability of State Government policy dated 13.12.2001.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Jaipur Development Authority Act.
5. Compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
6. Applicability of doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.
7. Assessment of developed land status and equivalence of value.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adequate Reparation for Compulsory Land Acquisition:
The appellants' lands were acquired in 1981 for the Indian Army's Field Firing Range. Compensation was initially awarded at Rs. 1500 per bigha, later enhanced to Rs. 15000 per bigha by the Reference Court in 1994. Despite this, the enhanced compensation was not paid, leading to prolonged litigation.

2. Entitlement to 15% Developed Residential Land in Lieu of Compensation:
The appellants claimed entitlement to 15% developed residential land based on a State Government policy dated 13.12.2001. They argued that this policy promised developed land in lieu of compensation, which was not honored by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA).

3. Validity and Enforceability of State Government Policy Dated 13.12.2001:
The policy dated 13.12.2001 was issued by the Urban Development Department, offering developed land to landowners whose compensation had not been paid. The High Court initially ruled that this policy lacked statutory force as it was not expressed in the name of the Governor or authenticated as required by Article 166(1) and (2) of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court found that the policy was indeed a valid and enforceable state policy, as it was consistent with earlier policies and had been acted upon by the State Government.

4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Jaipur Development Authority Act:
The JDA contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellants' claims. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 83 of the JDA Act to hear appeals against JDA's actions. The Tribunal's decision to annul the auction notice and direct the JDA to allot developed land to the appellants was upheld.

5. Compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India:
The High Court's decision was based on the non-compliance of the policy with Article 166(1) and (2). The Supreme Court clarified that non-compliance with these clauses does not render an executive action invalid if it is otherwise validly taken under the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3). The policy was found to be consistent with the Rules of Business, and the State Government had acted on it.

6. Applicability of Doctrines of Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation:
The appellants argued that they had a legitimate expectation based on the State's promise to allot developed land. The Supreme Court upheld this argument, stating that the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation applied. The State was bound by its promise, and the appellants had altered their position based on this promise.

7. Assessment of Developed Land Status and Equivalence of Value:
The lands offered to the appellants at Lalchandpura and Anantpura were found to be undeveloped. The Supreme Court directed the JDA to allot developed land at Vidyadhar Nagar, Gokul Nagar, Truck Terminal, and Vaishali Nagar, as these areas were fully developed and met the policy's requirements.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the respondents to allot 15% developed land to the appellants at the specified locations within six weeks. The Court emphasized the State's duty to honor its commitments and ensure fair treatment to the appellants.