2004 Supreme(SC) 1353

2004(8) Supreme 838
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI., Ashok Bhan, J.
State of U.P. and Anr. etc.etc. -Appellants
versus
Satya Narain Kapoor (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. etc. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1273-1275 of 1998
With
I.A. Nos. 9-11/1999 In C.A. Nos. 1273-1275/1998
With
C.A. Nos. 1276-1278/1998
C.A. Nos. 1279-1281/1998
C.A. No. 1728/1998
C.A. No. 1886/1998
C.A. No. 2596/1998
W.P. No. 163/1999
C.A. No. 6957/2004
(Arising of SLP (C) No. 13096/1999)
Decided on 26-10-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Arvind Verma, Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra, B.K. Sinha, B.K. Satija, Anuvrat Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Singh, V.B. Joshi, P.K. Jain, Advocate (NP), Yash Pal Dhingra, Advocate (NP), N.B. Bisht, Advocate (NP), Pradeep Misra, Advocate (NP), Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate (NP)/Advocates.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 136-Rules for the Grant of Leases of Subzimandi Shops in the Allahabad District (Nazul Shops)-Government Order No.2547/XI, dated 16-7-1940 as amended by Government Order No. 789-A/XI-77-88 dated 17-2-1942-Dispute relating to allotment or right to occupy two small shops described as Nazul Shops-On 30-10-1991, District Magistrate directed the Nagar Mahapalika to have the shops vacated so as to be available for fresh allotment through public auction inasmuch as the shops were continuing in illegal occupation-Writ petitions filed claiming entitlement to the allotment of the shops-Controversy as to who is entitled to substitution in place of the original allottee and continue to remain in possession of two shops-While the three writ petitions were pending, on application of one petitioner R to the Joint Secretary, the latter had agreed for converting nazul shop as freehold and then being entered in her name-That writ petition was withdrawn-Objections filed by other two writ petitioners for grant of freehold rights claiming party with R -Division Bench of the High Court held that there was an element of public interest involved inasmuch as the property of the State known as nazul land was being loitered away by converting allotments into freehold much to the prejudice of interest of the State-Shift of emphasis in the controversy-Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside-Cases remanded to the High Court for hearing and decision afresh.

       Held : That during the course of hearing the Division Bench, seized of the hearing of the writ petitions, thought that there was an element of public interest involved inasmuch as the property of the State known as nazul land was being loitered away by converting the allotments into freehold much to the prejudice of the interest of the State. The Division Bench took note of the fact that Satya Narain Kapoor and Mohammad Ali, the two writ petitioners in their their respective writ petitions, had started staking claim for the grant of freehold rights claiming parity with Rafiqunnisa. The shift of emphasis in the controversy is reflected in the judgment of the High Court. (Para 10)

       The Division Bench noted that the issue initially arising for decision was : Are the petitioners entitled to receive a grant as a lease of shops which are nazul properties and governed under the Nazul Shop Rules? And, the answer of the State administration was: No . The Division Bench observed that the subsequent allotment as freehold in favour of Rafiqunnisa was managed . And this led the Division Bench on embarking upon very wider issues of far reaching implications. Some of the questions which the Division Bench entered into examining are noted in the judgment itself; to wit, they are: (1) What is the concept of nazul properties or estate? (2) What are the laws which relate to government grants? (3) How did the State come to possess the land which it could made available as a grant on certain terms and conditions? (4) Who possesses lands for which there is no owner and lands which are heirless? (Para 10)

       We are not doubting the jurisdiction of the High Court to take cognizance of an issue wherein the element of public interest is involved and to take up and entertain the same as public interest litigation and pronounce upon such issues exercising the jurisdiction which the Constitution does vest in the High Court but that has to be done by following the established rules of practise and procedure consistently with the rules of natural justice. The High Court, if convinced, should have framed specific issues with which it proposed to deal with in public interest and then should have put the State on specific notice inviting its pleadings and documents. Any other party likely to be adversely affected and interested in being heard may have been allowed the opportunity of doing so. A larger issue involving public interest and far reaching implications should not have been dealt with so lightly, casually and hurriedly as the High Court has done. So far as the dispute raised by the private parties as writ petitioners in the High Court is concerned, the High Court could have postponed the decision in such individual writ petitions until the larger issue of public interest was decided; or else the High Court could have adjudicated upon the limited dispute as to the right of allotment over the two shops and then taken up the larger public interest issue for adjudication as a separate writ petition, the decision wherein would have become applicable even to shop Nos. 195 and 196 as they being similarly situated as other shops, would have been liable to be treated equally. For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The cases are remanded to the High Court for hearing and decision afresh consistently with the observations made hereinabove. (Paras 14 and 15)