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

2008 Supreme(SC) 1213

C.K. THAKKER, D.K. JAIN, JJ.
ABDUL GAFUR & ANR. – APPELLANTS.
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS – RESPONDENTS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4982 OF 2008
DECIDED ON : AUGUST 11, 2008.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 6 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 24 and 9 - Acquisition of land - Gift deeds - Necessary for the disposal of this appeal are gazette - Notification was issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring land belonging to one respondent No.4 for construction of approach road for Institute Hospital Trust - Respondent No. objected to the said acquisition - He alienated a part of said land in favor of appellants No.1 and 2 by way of gift deeds – Held, Fundamental norms of judicial process is arguable questions either legal or factual should not be summarily dismissed without recording a reasoned order - Mere entertainment of the Writ Petition, to which appellants herein were not parties even if it involved determination of similar issues, in our opinion, was not a good ground to dismiss two suits without granting opportunity to parties to prove their respective stands - Scope of Writ Petition and the two suits also seems to be different - Appeal is Allowed

JUDGMENT : D.K. JAIN, J -Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order, dated 29th March, 2007, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition Misc. No.272 of 2007 whereby the two suits filed by the appellants for perpetual injunction have been dismissed in limine.

3. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: On 2/28th March, 2005, a gazette Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) for acquiring 0.6900 Hec. of land belonging to one Tek Chand, respondent No.4 herein, for construction of approach road for Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Dehradun, respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as "the Hospital"). Tek Chand objected to the said acquisition. In the meanwhile, on 25th May, 2005, he alienated a part of the said land in favour of appellants No.1 and 2 by way of gift deeds. Gazette notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 16th June, 2005.

4. On 4th July, 2005, Tek Chand (respondent No.4) preferred a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It appears that on 27th March, 2006, a clarification was issued by the State Government, respondent No.1, to the effect that the possession of the passage to the Hospital shall remain with them; the Government would be making financial contribution in its construction and the public would be entitled to use the same.

5. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government in the Writ Petition it was reiterated that the road was not going to be used exclusively by the Hospital. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed by Tek Chand against the said order was also dismissed on 15th September, 2006. Licence deed in respect of the said land was executed in favour of the Hospital on 16th November, 2006 and construction of the road commenced some time in November, 2006.

6. Apprehending that the Hospital was planning to raise a wall on both sides of the road, obstructing use of the road by the public at large, including the appellants, the appellants filed the aforementioned two suits against the Hospital and Tek Chand for perpetual injunction in the court of Civil Judge (JD), Dehradun, restraining the Hospital from raising construction of any nature in the said property. Applications under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") were also filed for grant of interim injunction.

7. The suits were contested by the Hospital. Taking into consideration the written statement filed on behalf of the Hospital and after hearing the parties, the trial court, by detailed orders, dated 2nd February, 2007, granted temporary injunction in favour of the appellants and restrained the Hospital from constructing boundary wall on both sides of the road in question. Being aggrieved, the Hospital, filed appeals to the court of District Judge, Dehradun. Arguments in the appeals were heard and orders were reserved.

8. During the pendency of the appeals, Tek Chand filed yet another Writ Petition on 11th March, 2007, inter alia, alleging that the acquisition was fraudulent. While entertaining the Writ Petition, exercising its power under Section 24 of the Code, vide an ex-parte order dated 20th March, 2007, the High Court transferred both the said suits as well as the civil appeals to itself in order to get the dispute settled between the parties. In the said order, the High Court directed that both the lower courts shall give notices to all the parties in the suit and the appeals, informing them that the suits and appeals stand transferred to the High Court and they were required to appear in person before the Court on 28th March, 2007. On the said order being communicated to the appellants, they filed Misc. Application No. 499 of 2007 in the said Writ Petition seeking recall of order dated 20th March, 2007.

9. When the Writ Petition came up for co























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