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 870 - SC - Indian LawsPower of RIICO authority to cancel the alloted land - Obligation on the part of RIICO to provide access to road - Lease deed executed with a clear stipulated time to develop land in 5yrs - failure to fulfill the conditions may amount to recover its possession - Writ of Mandamus Whether a person can directly seek writ petition before applying any other remedies available to him in leese deed - HELD THAT:- It is a settled law that writ does not lie merely because it is lawful to do so. A person may be asked to exhaust the statutory/alternative remedy available to him in law. Whether the matters/disputes relating to contract can be enforced through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. - HELD THAT:- the court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce the contractual obligation. The primary purpose of a writ of mandamus, is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law.Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. Whether RIICO had authority to cancel the alloted land by not providing access to road. - HELD THAT:- The State of Rajasthan had acquired the land in exercise of its eminent domain and transferred the same to the appellant-RIICO after receiving the consideration amount and executed the lease deed in its favour. The State exercised its power in transferring the land to RIICO under the Rules 1959. However, further allotment by RIICO to the respondent-company was under the Rules 1979. Rule 11-A of the Rules 1959, as amended created a legal fiction by which the respondent-company had become a lessee and the State of Rajasthan, the lessor and RIICO had no authority whatsoever, to cancel the allotment of land made in favour of the respondent-company, since it was only the State of Rajasthan that had the authority to cancel the said allotment; by not providing for an access road, the purpose for which allotment was made by RIICO stood defeated, and this was what had resulted in the delay of the development of the said land, and in such a fact-situation, cancellation of land was not permissible; there was a constructive obligation on the part of the appellant-RIICO to provide an approach road with respect to the land which was allotted; and that RIICO had failed to co-operate with the respondent-company to accomplish the task it had undertaken.therefore, the entire project was to be completed within a period of five years. that construction was just made on the fraction of the entire land.the lessee will not transfer nor sub-let nor relinquish rights without prior permission from the appellant. However, it is evident that the respondent-company had negotiated with a third party for development of the land.
|