Supreme Court of India
V. KRISHNAMURTHY & ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. on 26 March 2019
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1042
A
V. KRISHNAMURTHY & ANR.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7703-7704 OF 2009)
BMARCH 26, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ANDDINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Land laws:
Resumption of allotted land – Respondent-State allotted a landCto appellant-Society on certain terms and conditions – After fewyears, Respondent-State resumed the land in terms of clause 4 ofallotment order for public purpose – Writ petitions by appellant-Society on the ground of mala fides – According to the appellants,since they were the members of the opposition party, the party inDpower at that time due to political rivalry issued the impugnedresumption order – Single Judge of High Court quashed theresumption order – However, Division Bench of High Court allowedappeals and restored resumption order – On appeal, held: A pleaof mala fides was only based on the averment that since the appellantwas a member of the opposition party, the party in power at thatEtime took the impugned action to resume the land against them –Such averment by itself would not constitute a plea of mala fideswithout there being any substantial material in its support – TheDivision Bench of High Court was right in upholding the resumptionorder as being legal and in conformity with clause 4 of the allotmentForder – No interference with the view of the Division Bench of HighCourt called for.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Admittedly, the land in question belonged to theState. Clause 4 of the allotment order empowered the State toGresume the land either in the event of violation of any of theterms and conditions of the allotment order by the appellant or ifit is required for public purpose. The State admittedly exercisedthe right of resumption of the land for a public purpose. A plea ofmala fides has no factual and legal foundation to sustain becauseHit is only based on the averment that since the appellant happened
1042
to be a member of the opposition party, the party in power at thattime had taken the impugned action to resume the land againstthem. Such averments by itself did not constitute a plea of malafides without there being any substantial material in its support.The appellants having failed to point out any legal infirmity in theresumption order except to take the plea based on mala fides,the Division Bench was right in upholding the resumption orderas being legal and in conformity with clause 4 of the allotmentorder. The view taken by the Division Bench did not call forinterference. The State will ensure that the land in question wouldonly be used for the public purpose and not for other purposes.[Paras 15, 16][1045-D-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7703-7704 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2008 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras in WA Nos. 1030 and 1031 of 1998
Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Anil Kumar Mishra-I, Pranjal Kishore,Ankit Dhawan and Sahithya Kishno, Advs. for the Appellant.
Balaji Srinivasa, AAG, Ms. Purbitaa Mitra, K. V. Vijaya Kumarand B. Balaji, Advs., for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orderdated 11.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras inW.A. Nos.1030 & 1031 of 1998 whereby the Division Bench of theHigh Court allowed the appeals filed by the respondent-State and setaside the order dated 19.06.1998 of the Single Judge in W.P. Nos.11058& 11059/1989.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals,it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts infra.
3. The appellants herein are the writ petitioners and therespondents herein are the respondents in the writ petitions out of whichthese appeals arise.
4. The Agricultural Horticultural Society(Society) is the appellantin C.A. No.7704/2009 which is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
ARegistration Act, 1975 whereas the appellant in C.A. No.7703 of 2009is its Secretary. The State of Tamil Nadu-respondent No.1 herein hadallotted the land in question to the appellant-Society on certain terms andconditions by agreement dated 28.04.1980.
5. By order dated 05.08.1989 (GO Ms. No.1259), the respondent-BState resumed the land in question in terms of clause 4 of the allotmentorder for public purpose, namely, development of sports facilities withoutaffecting the environment and development of horticulture and horticultureresearch.
6. The appellant-Society felt aggrieved by the said order and filedCtwo Writ Petitions (Nos.11058 and 11059 of 1989) in the Madras HighCourt. The challenge to the order was essentially based on the plea ofmala fides. The Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated19.06.1998, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the resumption orderdated 05.08.1989.
D7. The respondent-State felt aggrieved and filed two writ appeals(Nos.1030 & 1031/1998) before the Division Bench of the High Court.Earlier, the writ appeals were withdrawn but later on they were restoredto their files on an application made by the State in that behalf for theirdisposal according to law.
E8. By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the writ appealsand while setting aside the order passed by the Single Judge dismissedthe writ petitions giving rise to filing of these appeals by the writ petitionersin this Court.
9. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in theseappeals, is whether the Division Bench was justified in allowing theFappeals and, in consequence, was justified in upholding the resumptionorder dated 05.08.1989 of the respondent-State in relation to the land inquestion.
10. Heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel for theappellants and Mr. Balaji Srinivasa, learned AAG for the respondent-GState.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals.
12. As mentioned above, the appellants (writ petitioners) hadimpugned the resumption order dated 05.08.1989 essentially on the pleabased on mala fides. This plea of mala fides was based on politicalrivalry. According to the appellants, since they were the members of theopposition party, the party in power at that time issued the impugnedresumption order.
13. This plea found favour to the writ court (Single Judge) but theDivision Bench reversed the view of the Single Judge and dismissed thewrit petitions. In the other words, the Division Bench held that a plea ofmala fides raised by the appellants (writ petitioners) to impugn the actionwas not factually and legally sustainable.
14. In this Court also, the learned counsel for the appellants (writpetitioners) reiterated the same plea of mala fides for assailing theresumption notice dated 05.08.1989 but we find no merit therein for thefollowing reasons:
15. First, admittedly the land in question belongs to the State;Second, clause 4 of the allotment order empowers the State to resumethe land either in the event of violation of any of the terms and conditionsof the allotment order by the appellant or if it is required for public purpose,the State is entitled to exercise their right of resumption of the land; andThird, the State admittedly exercised the right of resumption of the landfor a public purpose.
16. A plea of mala fides, in our view, has no factual and legalfoundation to sustain because we find that it is only based on the avermentthat since the appellant happened to be a member of the opposition party,the party in power at that time had taken the impugned action to resumethe land against them. Such averments by itself do not constitute a pleaof mala fides without there being any substantial material in its support.In our view, the appellants having failed to point out any legal infirmity inthe resumption order except to take the plea based on mala fides, theDivision Bench was right in upholding the resumption order as beinglegal and in conformity with clause 4 of the allotment order. We concurwith the view taken by the Division Bench calling for no interference.Needless to observe, the State will ensure that the land in question wouldonly be used for the public purpose and not for other purposes.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A17. Learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out fromthe impugned order that the Division Bench has made some disparagingremarks against them at some places in the impugned order. In our view,those remarks were irrelevant for deciding the short controversy involvedin the case.
B18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals fail and areaccordingly dismissed.
Devika Gujral
Appeals dismissed.
C
D
E
F
G
H