2011 Supreme(SC) 652

Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI & ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Jaipur Development Authority & Others
Versus
Vijay Kumar Data & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7374 OF 2003 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.7375 of 2003
Decided on: 12-07-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
A new case cannot be set up in appeal.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Petitioners purchasing land from a person who purchased the same from Khatedar after publication of notice u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Appeal to Land Appellate Tribunal for injunction from dispossession dismissed following law laid down by Supreme Court – Single Judge dismissing writ petition – Intra-Court appeal filed – State Government, in the meantime, declaring a policy for regularization of such illegal transactions – Petitioners setting up an entirely new case on the basis of said policy before the Division Bench – Division Bench entertaining and allowing the same – Not permissible in absence of amendment of the plaint – Judicial discipline required that the Division Bench of the High Court should have followed the law laid down by this Court in Radhey Shyam’s case and Daulat Mal Jain’s case and refused relief to the respondents. (Para 29)

       (1994) 4 SCC 370; (1997) 1 SCC 35 – Relied upon

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Tribunal holding, among many things, that transferor of the property did not have title – This finding was not challenged in the writ petition – Division Bench ignored this aspect and granted relief to petitioner – Court committed grave error. (Para 30)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Division Bench erroneously treating the concerned letter as policy decision of State – Thereby legitimizing an illegal order – Even if it was policy decision, it ought to be quashed being contrary to law laid down in Radhey Shyam’s case and Daulat Mal Jain’s case. (Para 32, 34)

       (1994) 4 SCC 370; (1997) 1 SCC 35 – Relied upon

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 77 and 166 – Policy decision of State – Order expressed in the name of the President or the Governor and authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules only can be treated as an order made on behalf of the Government – Letter/ instruction in question merely a decision of a committee of Ministers – Not a policy decision. (Para 33)

       Facts of the case:

       State Government proposed the acquisition of 552 bighas 8 biswas land of village Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpura for planned development of Jaipur city.

       Initially, 65 Khatedars filed claims for compensation but this figure swelled to more than 137 because those who purchased land from the Khatedars after publication of the notification issued under Section 4 and their nominees/sub-nominees also filed claims for compensation. The second category of persons included Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta, Advocate and Dr. Bhagwan Das Khera, both of whom managed to purchase portions of the acquired land from one of the Khatedars, namely, Shri Vijay Lal son of Ram Sukhji. The Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur passed an unusual award dated 9.1.1964 whereby he not only determined the amount of compensation payable to the landowners and the beneficiaries of illegal transfers, but also directed allotment of plots measuring 1000 to 2000 square yards to the owners, their transferees and nominees/sub-nominees out of the acquired land.

       Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta, who had purchased the acquired land in 1963 i.e. much after publication of the notification issued under Section 4 and declaration issued under Section 6, filed suit for injunction, which came to be registered as Civil Suit No.629/1983 and was renumbered as Civil Suit No.270/1985 with the prayer that the defendant (appellant herein) may be restrained from interfering with his possession over plot Nos.C-112 to C-115, Lal Kothi Scheme. During the pendency of the suit, Ganesh Narayan Gupta transferred the plots to the respondents and two others by registered sale deeds, who were impleaded as plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 vide order dated 19.1.2001. Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta claimed title over the plots on the basis of the sale deed executed in his favour by Khatedar -Shri Vijay Lal and subsequent allotment of plots in his favour by the Trust. The respondents laid their claim on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 18.4.1993 executed in their favour by Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta.

       The trial court held that plaintiff No.1 - Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta is not entitled to relief of injunction because he could not prove his ownership over the suit land.

       Hugh Court dismissed the writ petition.

       Finding of the Court:

       Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error.

       Result:

       Appeals allowed.