Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 673 - SUPREME COURTOrder of release of Land - Land acquired by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation for industrial development - Maintainability of a writ petition, filed based on charges of discrimination - Held that:- It is a settled legal proposition that acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged at a belated stage. In the instant case, the earlier writ petition filed by the society and the khatedars jointly, was dismissed by the High Court only on the ground of delay. This Court upheld the said judgment and order, while granting the said parties liberty to challenge the acquisition afresh, on the ground of discrimination alone.Thus, a party seeking relief on the ground of discrimination must take appropriate pleadings, lay down the factual foundation and must provide details of the comparable cases, so that the court may reach a conclusion, whether the authorities have actually discriminated against that party; and whether there is in fact any justification for discrimination, assessing the facts of both sets of cases together. This Court has on various occasions dealt with the similar situation and explained as where the writ petition is maintainable. (See: Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal [1975 (8) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT], U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow, v. State of U.P. & Ors.[1995 (7) TMI 423 - SUPREME COURT] , Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India & Ors. [2000 (12) TMI 891 - SUPREME COURT] and Dr. Manju Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors.[2004 (11) TMI 339 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Inescapable conclusions - The schemes floated by the State Government (knowing well that acquiring land after the issuance of Section 4 Notification would be void), indicates a sorry state of affairs. Such orders have been passed without realizing that administration does not include mal-administration - The circulars issued by the State Government, being inconsistent with the policy and the law regarding acquisition, cannot be taken note of. Issuance of such circulars amounts to committing fraud upon statutes, and further, tantamounts to colourable exercise of power. The State in exercise of eminent domain acquires the land. Thus, before completing the acquisition proceedings, it should not release the land in favour of some other person who could not have acquired title over it at any point of time - The land had been acquired for industrial development and thus, cannot be permitted to be used for residential purposes. Therefore, the demand of the respondent-society cannot be held to be justified - Decided in favour of appellants.
|