SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 1141

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir
Kansing Kalusing Thakore and Ors PETITIONER
versus
Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai and Ors RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 5089 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 124-125/2006)
Decided on: 20/11/2006

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of stringent conditions by the High Court amounted to judicial interference in purely administrative acts and was not justified. The PIL filed by the respondents was an abuse of the process of the Court and not aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong.

Headnote:

PIL - Rehabilitation of Land - Bombay Merged Territory and Areas (Jagir Abolition Act) of 1953, Section 8; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, Section 43 - The court discussed the rehabilitation process under the policy decision of the Government of Gujarat and the lands being allotted to the appellants as an administrative act. The court highlighted the equitable relief entitled to the appellants and the imposition of stringent conditions by the High Court, which amounted to judicial interference in purely administrative acts. The court also emphasized the failure of the High Court to appreciate the legal provisions and the discriminatory treatment given to the appellants in the transfer of land.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants' lands were acquired by the State Government in 1954 for the establishment of the Dantiwada Agricultural University. The appellants challenged the part of the impugned order affecting their absolute right over the land given to them in lieu of their surrendered land. The High Court directed the Deputy Collector to grant possession of the land to the appellants with stringent conditions.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court's imposition of stringent conditions on the appellants was not justified and amounted to judicial interference in purely administrative acts. The PIL filed by the respondents was an abuse of the process of the Court and not aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong. The High Court failed to decide the maintainability of the PIL and should have rejected it at the threshold.

Issues: The issues included the equitable relief entitled to the appellants, the imposition of stringent conditions by the High Court, the maintainability of the PIL, and the discriminatory treatment given to the appellants in the transfer of land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the PIL filed by the respondents was an abuse of the process of the Court and not aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong. The High Court's imposition of stringent conditions on the appellants was not justified and amounted to judicial interference in purely administrative acts.

Final Decision: The civil appeals were allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The court directed the respondent-authorities to grant possession of the land immediately to the appellants without insisting for any undertaking from the appellants as directed by the High Court in its impugned judgment. The writ petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed, and the government and other appropriate authorities were directed to immediately hand over possession of the land allotted to the appellants by way of rehabilitation.

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Leave granted.

This is a Public Interest Litigation (in short 'PIL') by the villagers of Rasana Nana in Gujarat. The appellants 1-6, who are the respondents in the public interest litigations before the High Court, are the appellants in these appeals who also belong to the same village. In this PIL, the following question of law of great public importance arise for consideration of this Court which is, "whether the High Court failed to appreciate that the process for rehabilitation was under a policy decision of the Government of Gujarat and the lands being allotted to the appellants as an administrative act, which allotments was in lieu of the lands of the appellants acquired by the Government decades earlier, the judicial interference in the decision making process and policy of the Government not warranted in the facts of the case."

The appellants' lands were acquired by the State Government in the year 1954. This was in terms of Section 8

of the Bombay Merged Territory and Areas (Jagir Abolition Act) of 1953. The reason for the acquirement of the lands of the appellants by the State Government was for the establishment of the Dantiwada Agricultural University. As per the Government Policy, lands of such persons affected by the take over, allotment and/or reservation of separate land had been made by the competent authority in the adjacent villages, including village Rasana Nana. The appellants herein are challenging only that part of the impugned order which affects their absolute right over the land given to them in lieu of their land which was surrendered by them for the purpose of establishment of the Agricultural University. Land in survey Nos. 125 and 126 in village Rasna Nana though earmarked for rehabilitation was however not handed over to the persons affected by the take over of the lands for the purpose of establishment of the University. Several correspondences were made to the competent authority but for one reason or another, the land in the said survey nos. could not be handed over. In the year 2003, some of the appellants approached the High Court through 3 separate applications contending that although most of the persons affected had been given lands as per Government allotment policy dated 18.07.1973 and 11.02.1997 the appellants had been subjected to inequitable treatment. Three orders on different dates, i.e. on 20.09.2003, 14.10.2003 and 26.04.2004 were passed in the aforesaid 3 applications by the High Court. Directions were given to the competent authorities to consider and examine the case of each appellant and to take appropriate decision thereafter in terms of the policy framed by the State Government.

On 09.08.2004, the Deputy Collector passed 3 separate orders. He verified individual cases and took a final decision after consultation with the Collector whereby the reserved lands at survey Nos. 125 and 126 of village Rasana Nana were directed to be granted over to the appellants who also paid the occupancy price subsequently. It is stated that the order of the Deputy Collector was in furtherance of the policy decision of the State and was part of an Administrative Act. The appellants' claims were based upon the principles of legitimate expectation and the reliefs claimed by them were equitable in nature.

In October, 2004, five persons of the said village filed a petition before the High Court purportedly under public interest. They claimed themselves to be "public spirited individuals". In this petition, the challenge was to the 3 orders passed by the Deputy Collector allotting land from survey Nos. 125 and 126 of Village Rasana Nana and no challenge was made to the other allotments of the said village. It was contended that the lands allocated by this order was reserved for grazing of cattle i.e. Gauchar lands the allotment/settlement of which would affect the breeding of cattle in the village, such lands also serve as the water needs of the village.


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top