IMPORTANT POINTS
Any order passed by any authority in spite of the knowledge of the interim order of the court is a nullity.
Revisional authority can exercise its jurisdiction only for examining legality or propriety of an existing order or direction.
Who seeks equity must do equity.
Parties misleading the Court by not disclosing the true facts may be liable for criminal contempt of court.

Headnote:(a) Administrative Law – No higher authority in the hierarchy or an appellate or revisional authority can exercise the power of the statutory authority – Superior authority cannot direct the statutory authority to act in a particular manner – Such direction or order by superior authority remains unenforceable. (Para 22)
       AIR 1992 SC 1348; (1996) 8 SCC 506; (2005) 12 SCC 508; AIR 1991 SC 1902; AIR 2008 SC 870; (2006) 1 SCC 667; AIR 1970 SC 1896; AIR 1984 SC 322; AIR 1995 SC 2390; AIR 2006 SC 898; AIR 1971 SC 97; (2001) 6 SCC 260 – Relied upon
       (b) Administration of Justice – Any order passed by any authority inspite of the knowledge of the interim order of the court is a nullity. (Para 28)
       AIR 1967 SC 1386; AIR 1996 SC 135; AIR 2007 SC 1386; AIR 1996 SC 2005; AIR 2008 SC 901 – Relied upon
       (c) Administration of Justice – Court cannot grant a relief which has not been specifically prayed by the parties. (Para 33)
       AIR 1953 SC 235; AIR 1984 SC 186; AIR 1991 SC 409; AIR 2010 SC 475; AIR 1996 SC 2744 – Relied upon
       (d) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 – Section 41, Clause (1) – State Government being a revisional authority cannot pass an order without giving opportunity of hearing to the person who may be adversely affected – Revisional authority can exercise its jurisdiction only for examining legality or propriety of an existing order or direction. (Paras 35 and 36)
       (e) Burden of proof – Burden lies on the person, who alleges/avers/pleads for existence of a fact. (Para 40)
       (f) Delay – Condonation – No authority can condone a delay unless it is empowered in that regard and it examines whether there was sufficient cause shown for the delay – In absence of application of mind it will amount to vulnerable exercise of power. (Paras 41 and 42)
       AIR 1980 SC 319 – Relied upon
       (g) Constitution of India – Article 26 – A person should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective – Judicial process should never become an instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice – Filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and disentitles the party to any relief. (Paras 47 and 49)
       AIR 1993 SC 852; (1994) 6 SCC 620; (1995) 1 SCC 242; AIR 1997 SC 1236; AIR 1970 SC 898; AIR 1977 SC 781; AIR 1999 SC 2284; AIR 2003 SC 718; (2004) 7 SCC 166; JT 2010 (3) SC 510 – Relied upon
       (h) Maxim – “Jure naturaw aequum est neminum cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem” – It is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. (Para 47)
       (i) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Parties misleading the Court by not disclosing the true facts may be liable for criminal contempt of court. (Para 52)
       Facts of the case:
       1.Lands owned and possessed by predecessor-in-interest of private appellant Manohar Lal and respondent Ugrasen were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
       2.Possession of the land except one acre was taken and award was made.
       3.According to the Land Policy framed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh where a big chunk of land belonging to one person is acquired for planned development, except the land covered by roads, he shall be entitled to the extent of 40% of his total acquired land in a residential area after development in lieu of compensation.
       4. Both the private parties, i.e. Manohar Lal and Ugrasen claimed that they had made applications to claim the benefit under the said policy within time.
       5.Shri Ugrasen claimed that he had submitted the application on 31.12.1966 but no action was taken on the said application. Therefore, he filed another application on 7.9.1971. Still no action was taken.
       6.Manohar Lal-appellant filed application for the said purpose on 22.6.1969 and was allotted land bearing plot Nos. 5, 7 to 16 and 25 to 33 in Sector 3N.
       7.Shri Ugrasen therefore filed Writ Petition before High Court challenging the said order. At the time of consideration of application of Ugrasen by the State Government, the Ghaziabad Development Authority pointed out that submission of application by Shri Ugrasen was surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
       8.In the meanwhile, on a writ petition filed by Shri Manohar Lal the High Court restrained the authorities from making allotment to anyone else from the land allotted to him.
       9. In spite of the said interim order in force, the State Government directed GDA to make the allotment of land in favour of Shri Ugrasen and thus, in compliance of the same, GDA issued letter of allotment in his favour.
       10. GDA allotted the land to Shri Ugrasen in Plot Nos. 36, 38, 39, 44, 46 and 47 though it was also the land in dispute i.e., covered by the interim order passed by the High Court.
       11.Shri Ugrasen refused to take those plots as certain encroachment had been made upon the said lands. GDA allotted Plot Nos. 5, 7 to 16 to Shri Manohar Lal. Being aggrieved, Shri Ugrasen filed Writ Petition for quashing of the said allotment in favour of Shri Manohar Lal which was dismissed.
       Findings of the Court:
       1. There was no occasion for the State Government to entertain the applications of the said parties for allotment of land directly and issue directions to GDA for allotment of land in their favour.
       2.The action of the State Government smacks of arbitrariness and is nothing but abuse of power. Thus, orders passed by the State Government stood vitiated. More so, it was a clear cut case of colourable exercise of power.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - No higher or appellate/revisional authority can exercise the power of the statutory authority; such directions are unenforceable if issued by a superior authority directing the statutory authority to act in a particular manner (!) - The revisional authority can examine legality or propriety of an existing order or direction, not substitute its own order over the lower authority (!) (!) - An order passed by an authority in spite of an interim court order is a nullity; authority must respect interim orders (!) (!)

The State Government as revisional authority cannot entertain direct applications and direct lower authorities to allot land; such actions amount to colourable exercise of power (!) (!)
A relief cannot be granted which was not specifically prayed for; court cannot grant unrequested relief (!) (!)

How to determine whether a revisional authority can exercise its jurisdiction over a lower statutory authority without encroaching on its functions?

JUDGMENT

Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. —

1.Both these appeals have been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated 22nd July, 2003 passed in C.M.W.P. No.6644 of 1989 by which the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1-Ugrasen quashing the allotment of land made in favour of appellant-Manohar Lal and further directed to make the allotment of land in favour of the said respondent-Ugrasen.

2.In these appeals, three substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court are involved, they are, namely:

(a) As to whether the State Government - a Revisional Authority under the Statute, could take upon itself the task of a lower statutory authority?;

(b) Whether the order passed or action taken by a statutory authority in contravention of the interim order of the Court is enforceable?; and

3.Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that lands owned and possessed by predecessor-in-interest of private appellant Manohar Lal and respondent Ugrasen were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.08.1962 covering about 32 acres of land in the Revenue Estates of Kaila Pargana Loni Dist. Meerut (now Ghaziabad). Declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the said land was made on 24.05.1965 along with Notification under Section 17(1) invoking the urgency clause. Possession of the land except one acre was taken on 13.07.1965 and award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 11.05.1970.

The Government of Uttar Pradesh had framed Land Policy dated 30/31.07.1963 to the effect that where a big chunk of land belonging to one person is acquired for planned development, except the land covered by roads, he shall be entitled to the extent of 40% of his total acquired land in a residential area after development in lieu of compensation. The High-Powered Committee dealing with the issue laid down that applications for that purpose be filed within a period of one month from the date of taking the possession of the land which was subsequently changed to within one month from the date of completion of acquisition proceedings.

4.Both the private parties, i.e. Manohar Lal and Ugrasen claimed that they had made applications to claim the benefit under the said policy within time. Shri Ugrasen claimed that he had submitted the application on 31.12.1966 but no action was taken on the said application. Therefore, he filed another application on 7.9.1971. Manohar Lal-appellant claimed to have filed application for the said purpose on 22.6.1969 and was allotted land bearing plot Nos. 5, 7 to 16 and 25 to 33 in Sector 3N vide order dated 27.12.1979 as per the direction of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Shri Ugrasen filed Writ Petition No. 1932 of 1980 before Allahabad High Court challenging the said order dated 27.12.1979. Subsequently, vide order dated 7.3.1980, the land allotted to Manohar Lal was changed to Plot Nos. 25 to 33. At the time of consideration of application of Ugrasen by the State Government, the Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter called GDA) vide letter dated 18.3.1980 pointed out that submission of application by Shri Ugrasen was surrounded by suspicious circumstances as it was the last entry made on 31.12.1966 and signature of the receiving clerk had been made by a person who joined service only in 1979. In the meanwhile, Shri Manohar Lal filed Writ Petition No. 4159 of 1980 and the High Court restrained the authorities from making allotment to anyone else from the land allotted to him as per letter dated 7.3.1980.

5.In spite of the said interim order in force, the State Government vide order dated 12.12.1980 directed GDA to make the allotment of land in favour of Shri Ugrasen and thus, in compliance of the same, GDA issued letter of allotment dated 22.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 493

How to determine whether a revisional authority can exercise its jurisdiction over a lower statutory authority without encroaching on its functions?

Cases Referred (32)