Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
Ritesh Tewari & Another
Versus
State of U.P. & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8178 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO. 2786/2009)
Decided on : 21-09-2010
(Para 11)
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976–Section 10–All proceedings pending before any Court/authority under Act of 1976, stood abated automatically on commencement of Repeal Act of 1999, provided possession of the land involved in a particular case had not been taken by State.
(Para 13)
(2000) 6 SCC 325; (2004) 13 SCC 452; (2007) 11 SCC 90; JT (2010) SC 298–Relied upon.
Practice and Procedure–A party has to plead the case and adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions–In case pleadings are not complete, Court is not obliged to entertain the pleas.
(Para 19)
AIR 1988 SC 2181–Relied upon.
Constitution of India–Article 226–Power under Article 226 is discretionary and supervisory in nature–Extraordinary writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice–Writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. (Para 20)
AIR 1970 SC 645; AIR 2000 SC 2532; AIR 2001 SC 549; AIR 2002 SC 834; AIR 2003 SC 2889; (2010) 5 SCC 235–Relied upon.
Equity–Where a party's claim is not founded on valid grounds, party cannot claim equity–A party that claims equity must come before Court with clean.
(Para 21)
(2001) 5 SCC 629; AIR 1994 SC 2151; AIR 1984 SC, 1888; (1994) 2 SCC 481–Relied upon.
Administrative Law–If an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage–A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception.
(Paras 25 to 28)
(1998) 3 SCC 381; (2004) 8 SCC 599; (2006) 1 SCC 530; (2006) 1 SCC 228; (2005) 3 SCC 422–Relied upon.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872–Section 165–Court cannot admit illegal or inadmissible evidence for basing its decision–Wide discretion has been conferred on Court to act as exigencies of justice require–In order to discover proper proof of relevant facts, Court can ask question to parties concerned at any time and in any form.
(Para 30)
AIR 1968 SC 178; (2004) 4 SCC 158–Relied upon.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The appeal was filed against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging inter-departmental communications related to land disputes (!) (!) .
The dispute involves land in the revenue estate of a village, with original tenure holders having had assessment orders passed against them under the relevant land ceiling act, which declared certain land as surplus [1000495180002][1000495180003].
The original tenure holders did not challenge the assessment orders, which became final, and subsequently transferred the land to third parties. These transfers were challenged as void because they occurred after the assessment orders and in violation of the land ceiling laws [1000495180004][1000495180014].
The land ceiling law provided that transfers of surplus land after a certain notification were null and void, and the transfer in favor of the Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti was considered illegal and invalid [1000495180016][1000495180017].
The proceedings under the land ceiling act were abated upon the enactment of the Repeal Act, provided possession had not been taken by the State. The authorities had not physically taken possession of the land, rendering the proceedings ineffective [1000495180012][1000495180013].
The court emphasized that the transfer deeds, particularly the sale deed of 1982, were not on record and lacked proof of genuineness, making it impossible to verify their validity [1000495180017].
The court reiterated that pleadings must be complete, with facts and evidence properly pleaded and proved; incomplete pleadings cannot be entertained (!) (!) (!) .
The discretionary power of the court under constitutional provisions is to be exercised to prevent injustice and promote equity, but only when there is a grave miscarriage of justice or a clear violation of law (!) (!) (!) .
The court held that an order declared invalid at inception cannot be validated through subsequent actions or developments, and illegality at the root invalidates all subsequent proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the sale deed in favor of the third-party association was void and that subsequent transactions based on it should be disregarded (!) (!) .
The court noted that the power to elicit facts through questions is an extraordinary judicial tool to discover the truth, but in this case, efforts to ascertain the facts were unsuccessful (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appeal lacked merit based on the facts and legal principles discussed, and no costs were awarded (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance with specific legal issues related to this document.
Judgment :-
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2009, passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45169 of 2008 by which the prayer of the appellants to quash certain inter-departmental communications has been rejected.
Facts:
3. One Mawasi, resident of Saraivega Hemlet of village Kakratha, Tehsil and District Agra, had two sons, namely, Sukha and Shyama. Shyama has only one son namely, Rammo. Descendents of Sukha have been Ballo, Radhe Ram, Babu and Sohan Singh. They were having certain land in Gata Nos. 870, 258, 192, 258/2 and 258/5 measuring 9 Bighas 14 Biswas situate in the revenue estate of Village Kakratha Pragana, Tehsil and District Agra. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called `the Act 1976') came into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 17th of February, 1976. The aforesaid tenure holders were subjected to the provisions of the aforesaid Act 1976. They had filed their respective declaration as required under the Act 1976, however, the record reveals that ex-parte assessment orders had been passed against all of them under Section 8(4) of the Act 1976 on 30th January, 1981, 31st January, 1981, 30th March, 1981, 8th May, 1981 and 25th May, 1981, declaring an area of land as surplus.
4. The original tenure holders did not challenge the said assessment orders in appeal or writ jurisdiction, thus they attained finality. It is stated that the said tenure holders transferred the major part of land so declared as surplus with them on 20th April, 1982 in favour of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti. The authorities under the Act 1976 proceeded against those tenure holders under Section 10 (3) publishing a Notification dated 6.7.1993 which effectuated the deemed vesting of such land in the State. Notices under Section 10(5) were issued on 31st March, 1993; 13th September, 1993; and 18th February, 1994, directing the said tenure holders to hand over the possession to the statutory authority, however, there is nothing on record to show that actual physical possession was taken by the statutory authorities in exercise of their power under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976.
5. The pleadings in this appeal reveal that certain members of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti had sold their land to M/s Savy Homes (P) Ltd. who in turn further sold the land to the present appellants vide sale deed dated 15th June, 2006. Appellants further claim to have applied for sanction of plan for construction of buildings and the same was accorded by the statutory authorities under the Municipal Law. Appellants also claim to have developed the land.
6. The Act 1976 was repealed with effect from 18th March, 1999 vide Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter called the Act 1999). The appellants apprehended that they could be dispossessed by the authorities in view of certain inter-departmental communications contained in letters dated 30th June, 2008 and 18th July, 2008, and thus, preferred Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 45169 of 2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for quashing of the same and for a direction restraining the respondents to interfere with the actual and physical possession of the land of the appellants. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 20th January, 2009. Hence, this appeal.
Rival claims of the Parties:
7. Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the authorities under the Act 1976 have never exercised the power under Section 10(6) of the Act 1976 and, thus, possession of the land in dispute had never been taken by the State and after commencement of the Act 1999, the proceedings stood abated. Therefore, the question of interference with the land in dispute does not arise. The High Court erred in taking into consideration the locus-standi of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
