IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Article 14 cannot be invoked for perpetuating irregularities or illegalities.
2. Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950-Article 226 -Lease Deed-Application for regularization of-Rejected by State government-Appeal against judgment of High Court whereby writ appeal filed by appellant was dismissed and the order passed by Single Judge declining to interfere with the decision taken by State Government not to regularize the lease deed executed in her favour in respect of land measuring 413 sq. yards was upheld-Plea of appellant that even if lease deed was forged, High Court ought to have issued a direction to respondents to regularize the same because in 100 similar cases, lease deeds were regularized by State Government on payment of market value- Even though appellant raised the plea of discrimination, she failed to produce any evidence to prove that other cases were identical to her case- In absence of such evidence, High Court could not have relied upon the bald statement contained in the writ petition filed by appellant and quashed the well reasoned decision taken by State Government not to regularise the lease in her favour- Lease deed executed in favour of appellant was ex-facie contrary to the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution- No case of appellant nor any material produced by her to show that lease deed was executed after issuing an advertisement so as to enable other eligible persons to compete for allotment of public land-Appeal having no merit dismissed (Paras 12 to 14)
        Constitution of India,1950-Article 14-Scope and ambit of-The concept of equality enshrined in article is a positive concept- The Court can command the State to give equal treatment to similarly situated persons, but cannot issue a mandate that the State should commit illegality or pass wrong order because in another case such an illegality has been committed or wrong order has been passed- If any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court and seek a direction that the same irregularity or illegality be committed in their favour by State or its agencies/instrumentalities (Para 10)
       Facts of the Case :
        A.On an application made by appellant herein in the instant case the land in question is said to have been leased out to her vide deed prepared by the then Inspector employed in the office of the Estate Officer, Secunderabad in the name of the Revenue Secretary of the State. After getting the lease deed, the appellant applied for permission to raise construction. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad refused to grant permission on the ground that the land was earmarked for road and the lease deed executed in favour of the appellant appeared to be fictitious. Thereupon, the appellant approached District Collector and other functionaries of the Government, who recommended regularization of the lease. However, State Government rejected the representation of the appellant.
        B. Present Appeal has been filed against judgment of High Court whereby the writ appeal filed by appellant was dismissed and the order passed by Single Judge declining to interfere with the decision taken by State Government not to regularize the lease deed executed in her favour in respect of land measuring 413 sq. yards was upheld.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Supreme Court opined that even though appellant raised the plea of discrimination, she failed to produce any evidence to prove that other cases were identical to her case. In absence of such evidence, High Court could not have relied upon the bald statement contained in the writ petition filed by appellant and quashed the well reasoned decision taken by State Government not to regularise the lease in her favour. Lease deed executed in favour of appellant was ex-facie contrary to the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution. No case of appellant nor any material produced by her to show that lease deed was executed after issuing an advertisement so as to enable other eligible persons to compete for allotment of public land. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the writ appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the decision taken by the State Government not to regularize the lease deed executed in her favour in respect of land measuring 413 sq. yards was upheld. On an application made by the appellant, the land in question is said to have been leased out to her vide deed dated 10.1.1972 prepared by Venkat Rao, the then Inspector employed in the office of the Estate Officer, Secunderabad in the name of the Revenue Secretary of the State. After getting the lease deed, the appellant applied for permission to raise construction. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad refused to grant permission on the ground that the land was earmarked for road and the lease deed executed in favour of the appellant appeared to be fictitious. Thereupon, the appellant approached District Collector and other functionaries of the Government, who recommended regularization of the lease. However, vide memo dated 16.11.1988, the State Government finally rejected the representation of the appellant. That memo reads as under:

“GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REVENUE (0) DEPARTMENT

Memo No.2405/01/86-7

Dated : 16.11.1988.

Sub:- Land - Hyderabad District - Secunderabad Area Sardar Patel Road - Lease of land measuring 413 Sq. yards in favour of Dr.Mrs.Usha Mehta - Reg.

Ref :- 1. From Dr.(Mrs.) Usha Mehta rep. dt. NIL received on 13.9.1986.

2. Govt. Memo No.2405/01/86-1 dt. 30.9.86.

3. From the Incharge Jt. Collector, Hyderabad letter No. /6/151 Dt. 7.2.87.

4. From the E.O., Secunderabad and Collector, Hyderabad, Lr.No.DRO/17/87 dt. 13.4.1987.

5. From the C.L.R., Lr.No.BB4/688/87 dt.19.5.87. Government have carefully examined the representation of Dr.(Mrs.) Usha Mehta 1st cited in consultation with the Collector, Hyderabad and Commissioner of Land Revenue. They consider that the original lease deed itself was not issued by an authority competent to issue and the said document is reported to be a forged one, and that the mere fact that the lease amount and property tax were paid would not make a forged lease document a valid one, and hence, any claim based on such a document cannot and should not be accepted, much less acted upon. Therefore her request for restoration of the above said land is rejected accordingly.

The stay granted in the Government memo 2nd cited is hereby vacated.

Sathi Nair,

Secretary to Government.”

2. The appellant challenged the decision of the State Government in Writ Petition No. 17494 of 1988 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 12.03.1991 with a direction to the State Government to pass appropriate order after hearing the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The relevant portions of that order are reproduced below:

“A reading of the impugned memo which has been extracted above, does not show whether the Government has considered the regularisation of the lease on the altered circumstances and conditions as suggested by the two authorities. When the competent authorities after enquiry found that regularisation can be made, it is the duty of the concerned authorities, at the time of passing the impugned Memo to take note of the recommendations made by the competent authorities. Without taking note of the recommendations of the authorities and without discussing the pros and cons of the matter, the Government simply issued the impugned Memo. The contention of the petitioner that the Government has passed the order without applying its mind and without taking note of the recommendations of the competent authorities, has some force. On that simple ground only, the impugned Memo is quashed and the authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the recommendations made by the Collector, Hyderabad District, in the lett

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 741

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA G.S. SINGHVI & SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ. USHA MEHTA – Appellants. VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS – Respondent Civil Appeal No.3501 of 2003-Decided on 16-10-2012.

Cases Referred (25)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI & SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
USHA MEHTA – Appellants.
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.3501 of 2003-Decided on 16-10-2012.