IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
CWJC No.11979 of 2017
(7.3.2019)
H. D. Jain College, Ara – Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ petition seeking direction for restraining respondents from construction of building of Engineering College on land of College and with further prayer for removal of encroachment already made on land of College – In spite of giving ample opportunities, neither petitioner nor respondents have brought on record certified copy of indenture by virtue of which petitioner claims grant – Land in question is lying vacant since last seven decades – It is a clear violation of Clause 3 of indenture – In case of breach of terms and conditions of indenture, grantee ceases to use land and building thereon and grantor shall have right to resume grant and to re-enter on land and take possession of same without any compensation – There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner opted for renewal option or it was renewed – College could not acquire an absolute right, title over land in question as grantor had granted permission to utilize land for certain purposes and for specific period – As such, land cannot become absolute property of college – Claim of respondent State that land in question is recorded as Gairmajarua Aam or Gairmajarua Malgujar, has not been denied by petitioner – Both testamentary and non-testamentary gifts for public charitable purposes must be saved by a wider intervention of Court, as public interest is served that way – Jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not to frustrate public purpose but to uphold public purpose – Besides, there are serious disputes as to right, title and interest, this Court is of considered view that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum to decide such disputed questions – Writ application dismissed. (Paras 37 and 38)
Doctrine – Doctrine of Cypres is usually interpreted as a rule providing for interpretation of instruments, in equity, as nearly as possible, in conformity to intention of testator, unless literal construction is illegal, impracticable or impossible. (Paras 32)
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned Counsels for the parties.
2. The present writ application was filed by the H.D. Jain College, Ara (hereinafter referred to as the College) through its Principal Dr. Chandrashekhar Saha for restraining the respondents from construction of building of the Engineering College on the land of the College and with further prayer for removal of encroachment already made on the land of the College. The relief as stipulated in paragraph 1 of the writ application reads as follows: –
“1. That it is an application for issuance of an appropriate writs/directions commanding the respondents to restrain respondents from making construction of building of engineering college on the land of H.D. Jain college, Ara (hereinafter referred to as the college) of Mauza-Ara, Thana No.-237, Tauzi No.-30, Khata No-1136, 1137, 1138, Khesra No- 3546, 3542, 3553, 3554, 3555, 3556, 3557, 3558, 3559, 3560, 3564, 3583, 3584, 3586, 3587, 3588, 3589, 359, 3591, 3592, 3774. The petitioner further prays to issue direction for removal of encroachment from aforesaid land of the college and also grant any other reliefs for which petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
I.A. No. 6082 of 2017
3. The aforementioned I.A. has been preferred on 31.7.2017 on behalf of the petitioner for staying the construction of Engineering College on the land of the College. Since the writ application was filed on 19.8.2017 but no counter affidavit was filed, hence this Court vide order dated 5.12.2017, directed to maintain status quo as existing on that day with regard to the land recorded in the revenue records in the name of the College in question. In the meantime the learned counsels for the University and the State were directed to file counter affidavit. The interim order reads as follows: –
“In the meantime, status quo, as is existing today, with regard to the lands, recorded in the revenue records in the name of the College in question, shall be maintained.”
Accordingly, I.A. No. 6082 of 2017 stood disposed of.
I.A. No. 206 of 2018
4. The aforementioned I.A. was preferred on 09.01.2018 on behalf of the respondent-State (respondent nos. 4 and 5) for modification of the order dated 5.12.2017, whereby the interim order of status quo was granted. The aforementioned I.A. was not taken up as it is jointly prayed for disposal of the writ application since the pleadings were almost complete. Moreover, the interim order of status quo was with regard to the land recorded in the revenue records in the name of the College in question but since the specific case of the respondent-State is that the part of the land in question is recorded as ‘Gairmajarua Aam’ and part of it is recorded ‘Gairmajarua Malgujar’, and the same is not being disputed by the either party, hence the status quo order is not affecting the petitioner.
Accordingly, the I.A. No. 206 of 2018 stands disposed of.
I.A. No. 359 of 2018
5. The aforementioned I.A. was filed on 16.01.2018 for amendment of the prayer to the extent of quashing Memo No. 434 dated 27.6.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, as contained in Annexure 6, whereby and whereunder part of the land appertaining to Thana No. 237, Khata No. 1138 and 1139, Plot Nos. 3546, 3549 and 3568, total measuring an area of 4.9 acres has been transferred to Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar. Through the same I.A., further prayer was made to implead the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna as respondent no. 7. Paragraph no. 1 of I.A. No. 359 of 2018 reads as follows: –
“1. That this is an interlocutory application for making additional prayer for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 434 dated 27.6.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna whereby and whereunder land pertaining to Anchal – Sadar, Ara, Mauza – Kesba Ara, Thana No. 237, Khata No. 1138 and 1139, Khesra No. 3546, 3569 and 3568 of Kakba 3.24676, 1.58437 and 0.06887 of 4.90 acre has been transferred
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.