IMPORTANT POINT
Where a really contractual dispute is sought to be presented as breach of fundamental right, writ petition would be misconceived.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 32-Development Authority of State formulated a scheme for allotment of land to retired and serving Defence personnels -State acquired land under Land Acquisition Act-Scheme contemplated allotment of plot at fixed rate Rs. 600 per sq. meter and petitioners took possession between March 1995 to December 1995-Pursuant to order passed by Supreme Court enhancing compensation payable to claimants in Land Acquisition case, Development Authority raised additional amounts from members at Rs. 694 per sq. meter-Writ challenging demand-Petition was misconceived as what was really a contractual dispute was sought to be presented as breach of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
       Held : In our view, this writ petition is entirely misconceived. A perusal of the grounds on which relief is sought makes it clear that what is really a contractual dispute is sought to be masqueraded as breach of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. In the first place, a fundamental right to property no longer exists by reason of the deletion of Clause (f) from Article 19(1) of the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, sec. 2, (w.e.f. 20.6.1979). Secondly, it is not possible to accept the contention that Article 21 has been infringed or that there is a violation of Article 21 by reason of a dispute which has arisen between the two parties to a contract with regard to price payable for land allotted to the members of one of the parties. Finally, as to the allegation of breach of Article 14, we find that this issue cannot be adjudicated unless the full facts of the contractual dispute are ascertained and the contractual rights of the parties are adjudicated. We also find that, as a matter of fact, one of the associations had filed civil suit before the Civil Court at Meerut, being Original Petition No. 845 of 1999, and sought for an injunction therein. We are informed that, though the injunction order was not granted, the suit is still pending. In these circumstances, we called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy us as to why we should entertain a writ petition directly under Article 32 of the Constitution, in what appears to be a purely contractual dispute. (Paras 11 to 15)
       In our view, what is projected before us, though under the camouflage of an infringement of fundamental right, is really a contractual dispute pure and simple. As to whether there is a right reserved in the second Respondent to pass on the additional liability to the purchasers, is determined by the terms of the contract between the parties. Though, a model sale deed has been placed on record before us, we think it necessary that the facts in each case have to be investigated, the terms of the contract between the second Respondent and the allottee be determined on evidence and construed, before the dispute can be satisfactorily adjudicated. In our view, a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is neither an occasion, nor an appropriate remedy, for such a dispute. Without expressing anything further on the merits of the dispute between the parties, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case before us. (Paras 19 and 20)

JUDGMENT

Srikrishna, J.-These four writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, though slightly differing on facts, raise the same issue of law and, therefore, can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

Writ Petition No. 344 of 2000:

2. This writ petition is by a society of the residents of a colony known as Defence Enclave in Meerut. The respondents to the writ petition are the State of U.P., the Meerut Development Authority and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, U.P.

3. The second respondent, Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the authority ) is a statutory authority constituted under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The objectives of the authority are securing the development of the development area according to plan and for that purpose the authority has the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and other property, to carry out building, engineering, mining and other operations, to execute works in connection thereto for such development and for purposes incidental thereto. Under Section 17 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to acquire any land, if land is required for the purpose of development, or for any other purpose of the Act and State Government, having taken possession of the land, is empowered to transfer it to the Authority on payment by the Authority of the compensation awarded under the Act and the charges incurred by the Government in connection with the acquisition. Under Section 18 of the Act, the Authority may dispose of the land acquired by the State Government after undertaking or carrying out such development as it thinks fit, to such persons, in such manner, and subject to such terms and conditions as it considers expedient for securing the development of the development area according to plan. Under sub-Section (2) of Section 18 the Authority is empowered to dispose of the land by sale, exchange or lease or by the creation of any easement, right or privilege or otherwise.

4. One of the main functions of the second Respondent authority is urban development. Pursuant to this objective, the second Respondent formulated a scheme known as "Defence Enclave". The scheme envisaged allotment of land on long lease for 90 years to retired and serving Defence personnel. For the purpose of implementing the scheme, the first Respondent, State of U.P., acquired land by invoking its powers under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the acquired lands @ Rs. 50/- per sq. yard to the land holders. The land holders sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 50/- per sq. yard to Rs. 240/- per sq. yard by an award dated 11.5.1992. First and second Respondent carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The claimants also filed cross appeals. The High Court by its judgment dated 12.1.1995 reduced the compensation from Rs. 240/- per sq. yard to Rs. 75/- per sq. yard.

5. The claimants filed special leave petitions in this Court which came to be disposed of by an Order dated 30.4.1997. This Court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants from Rs. 75/- per sq. yard to Rs. 175/- per sq. yard. While disposing of the special leave petitions, this Court observed as under:

"The appeals are, accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The award and decree of the reference Court in respect of villages stand modified. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. If the amount has already been deposited as per the award of the reference Court to the extent of variation, the Meerut Development Authority is entitled to restitution. It is open to the Meerut Development Authority to enforce the award for seeking restitution. In view of the incre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1109

IMPORTANT POINTWhere a really contractual dispute is sought to be presented as breach of fundamental right, writ petition would be misconceived.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where a really contractual dispute is sought to be presented as breach of fundamental right, writ petition would be misconceived.