Lal (D) by LRS. Vs. Ugrasen (D) by LRS. & Ors.  INSC 426 (3 June
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 973 of
2007 Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. ....Appellants Versus Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. &
Ors. ...Respondents With Civil Appeal No. 974 of 2007 Ghaziabad Development
Authority ....Appellant Versus Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. & Ors. ...Respondents
Dr. B. S.
these appeals have been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved of the
judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated 22nd July, 2003 passed in
C.M.W.P. No.6644 of 1989 by which the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition
filed by respondent No.1-Ugrasen quashing the allotment of land made in favour
of appellant-Manohar Lal and further directed to make the allotment of land in
favour of the said respondent-Ugrasen.
these appeals, three substantial questions of law for consideration of this
Court are involved, they are, namely:
(a) As to
whether the State Government - a Revisional Authority under the Statute, could
take upon itself the task of a lower statutory authority?;
Whether the order passed or action taken by a statutory authority in
contravention of the interim order of the Court is enforceable?; and (c)
Whether Court can grant relief which had not been asked for?
and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that lands owned and
possessed by predecessor-in-interest of private appellant Manohar Lal and
respondent Ugrasen were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). Notification under Section 4
of the Act was issued on 2 13.08.1962 covering about 32 acres of land in the
Revenue Estates of Kaila Pargana Loni Dist. Meerut (now Ghaziabad). Declaration
under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the said land was made on 24.05.1965
along with Notification under Section 17(1) invoking the urgency clause.
Possession of the land except one acre was taken on 13.07.1965 and award under Section
11 of the Act was made on 11.05.1970.
Government of Uttar Pradesh had framed Land Policy dated 30/31.07.1963 to the
effect that where a big chunk of land belonging to one person is acquired for
planned development, except the land covered by roads, he shall be entitled to
the extent of 40% of his total acquired land in a residential area after
development in lieu of compensation. The High-Powered Committee dealing with
the issue laid down that applications for that purpose be filed within a period
of one month from the date of taking the possession of the land which was
subsequently changed to within one month from the date of completion of
the private parties, i.e. Manohar Lal and Ugrasen claimed that they had made
applications to claim the benefit 3 under the said policy within time. Shri
Ugrasen claimed that he had submitted the application on 31.12.1966 but no
action was taken on the said application. Therefore, he filed another
application on 7.9.1971. Manohar Lal-appellant claimed to have filed
application for the said purpose on 22.6.1969 and was allotted land bearing
plot Nos. 5, 7 to 16 and 25 to 33 in Sector 3N vide order dated 27.12.1979 as
per the direction of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Shri Ugrasen filed
Writ Petition No. 1932 of 1980 before Allahabad High Court challenging the said
order dated 27.12.1979. Subsequently, vide order dated 7.3.1980, the land
allotted to Manohar Lal was changed to Plot Nos. 25 to
the time of consideration of application of Ugrasen by the State Government,
the Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter called GDA) vide letter dated
18.3.1980 pointed out that submission of application by Shri Ugrasen was
surrounded by suspicious circumstances as it was the last entry made on
31.12.1966 and signature of the receiving clerk had been made by a person who
joined service only in 1979. In the meanwhile, Shri Manohar Lal 4 filed Writ
Petition No. 4159 of 1980 and the High Court restrained the authorities from
making allotment to anyone else from the land allotted to him as per letter
spite of the said interim order in force, the State Government vide order dated
12.12.1980 directed GDA to make the allotment of land in favour of Shri Ugrasen
and thus, in compliance of the same, GDA issued letter of allotment dated
22.12.1980 in his favour. Shri Ugrasen submitted letter dated 1.1.1981 to GDA
to give an alternative land as the land covered by Plot Nos. 5 to 16 had been
subject matter of the interim order of the High Court in a writ petition filed
by Shri Manohar Lal.
Ugrasen withdrew his Writ Petition No.1932 of 1980 on 6.3.1981 and deposited
the compensation amount, i.e. Rs.32,010.60 on 3.3.1981. GDA allotted the land
to Shri Ugrasen in Plot Nos. 36, 38, 39, 44, 46 and 47 vide order dated
02.01.1985, though it was also the land in dispute i.e. covered by the interim
order passed by the High Court. Shri 5 Ugrasen refused to take those plots as
is evident from letter dated 7.1.1985 as certain encroachment had been made
upon the said lands. GDA, vide letter dated 27.3.1989, allotted Plot Nos. 5, 7
to 16 to Shri Manohar Lal. Thus, being aggrieved, Shri Ugrasen filed Writ
Petition No. 6644 of 1989 before the High Court for quashing of the said allotment
in favour of Shri Manohar Lal.
Parties exchanged the affidavits and after hearing the parties and considering
the material on record, the High Court allowed the said Writ Petition vide
judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2003. Hence, these appeals.
P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Manohar Lal
and Shri Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior counsel appearing for GDA have
contended that Shri Ugrasen had never filed application for allotment in time.
been manipulation in registration of the said application and it has been
surrounded with suspicious circumstances. The application of Shri Ugrasen had
been 6 considered directly by the State Government-the revisional authority,
though the State Government could not take the task of GDA upon itself. Land of
Shri Ugrasen had been acquired for roads, thus, as per the Land Policy he was
not entitled for any benefit of the same. Shri Ugrasen in his writ petition had
asked only for quashing the allotment in favour of Manohar Lal and there was no
prayer that the said land be allotted to him. Therefore, while issuing a
direction for making the allotment in favour of Ugrasen, the High Court has
exceeded its jurisdiction. Thus, appeals deserve to be allowed.
9. On the
other hand, Shri Debal Banerji, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
respondent-Ugrasen and Shri Pramod Swarup, learned Senior counsel appearing for
the State of U.P. have vehemently opposed the appeals contending that once a
decision has been taken as per the entitlement of the respondent-Ugrasen and
the High Court has examined each and every fact, question of re- appreciation
of evidence etc. is not permissible in exercise 7 of the discretionary
jurisdiction by this Court. Manohar Lal had also been allotted the land by the
Chief Minister and not by GDA, thus no fault can be found with allotment in
favour of Shri Ugrasen. Appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.
have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
SC 1348, the question arose as to whether the State Government, in exercise of
its statutory powers could issue any direction to the Electricity Board in
respect of appointment of its officers and employees. After examining the
statutory provisions, the Court came to the conclusion that the State
Government could only take the policy decisions as how the Board will carry out
its functions under the Act. So far as the directions issued in respect of
appointment of its officers was concerned, it fell within the exclusive domain
of the Board and the State Government had no competence to issue any such
direction. The said judgment has been approved 8 Autar and Anr. (1996) 8 SCC
and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 508, this Court held that the power of the Government
under Section 65 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 was not
unrestricted and the directions which could be issued were those which were to
carry out the objective of the Act and not those which are contrary to the Act
and further held that the directions issued by the Chief Minister to release
the lands were destructive of the purposes of the Act and the purposes for
which the BDA was created.
1902, this Court considered the provisions of a similar Act, namely, Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 containing a similar provision and held that
Government was competent only to give such directions to the authority as were
in its opinion necessary or expedient and for carrying out the purposes of the
Act. The Government could not have issued any other direction for the reason 9
that Government had not been conferred upon unfettered powers in this regard.
The object of the direction must be only to carry out the object of the Act and
only such directions as were reasonably necessary or expedient for carrying out
the object of the enactment were contemplated under the Act. Any other
direction not covered by such powers was illegal.
SC 870, a similar view has been re-iterated by this Court dealing with the
provisions of Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957.
said case, the Central Government had issued a direction to make allotment of
flat out of turn. The Court held as under:
41 of the Act, only envisages that the respondent would carry out such
directions that may be issued by the Central Government from time to time for
the efficient administration of the Act. The same does not take within its fold
an order which can be passed by the Central Government in the matter of
allotment of flats by the Authority. Section 41 speaks about policy decision.
direction issued must have a nexus with the efficient administration of the
Act. It has nothing to do with carrying out of the plans of the authority in
respect of a particular scheme..........Evidently, the Central Government had
no say in the matter either on its own or under the Act. In terms of the
brochure, Section 41 of the Act does not clothe any jurisdiction upon the
Central Government to issue such a direction."
this Court held as follows in context of Government directions:
Such a decision on the part of the State Government must be taken in terms of
the constitutional scheme, i.e., upon compliance of the requirement of Article
162 read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case,
the directions were purported to have been issued by an officer of the State.
Such directions were not shown to have been issued pursuant to any decision
taken by a competent authority in terms of the Rules of Executive Business of
the State framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India."
Ors. AIR 1970 SC 1896, this Court has observed :
power exercisable by the Cane Commissioner under Clause 6(1) is a statutory
power. He alone could have exercised that power. While exercising that power he
cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of anyone - not even in favour of
the State Government or the Chief Minister. It was not proper for the Chief
Minister to have interfered with the functions of the Cane Commissioner.
case what has happened is that the power of the Cane Commissioner has been
exercised by the Chief Minister, an authority not recognised by Clause (6) read
with Clause (11) but the responsibility for making those orders was asked to be
taken by the Cane Commissioner.
executive officers entrusted with statutory discretions may in some cases be
obliged to take into account considerations of public policy and in some
context the policy of a Minister or the Government as a 1 whole when it is a
relevant factor in weighing the policy but this will not absolve them from
their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases unless
explicit statutory provision has been made for them to be given binding
instructions by a superior."
Court while dealing with the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Co-operative
Societies Act, 1935, held as under:
action of the then Chief Minister cannot also be supported by the terms of
Section 65A of the Act which essentially confers revisional power on the State
Government. There was no proceeding pending before the Registrar in relation to
any of the matters specified in Section 65A of the Act nor had the Registrar
passed any order in respect thereto. In the absence of any such proceeding or
such order, there was no occasion for the State Government to invoke its powers
under Section 65A of the Act. In our opinion, the State Government cannot for
itself exercise the statutory functions of the Registrar under the Act or the
AIR 1995 SC 2390, it was observed :
is a case of power conferred upon one authority being really exercised by
another. If a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to
exercise it according to its own discretion. If the discretion is exercised
under the direction or in compliance with some higher authority's instruction,
then 1 it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether." (Emphasis
added) Court has de-lineated the functions of the State Government and the
Development Authority, observing that :
Both the State and the JDA have been assigned specific functions under the
statute. The JDA was constituted for a specific purpose. It could not take
action contrary to the scheme framed by it nor take any action which could
defeat such purpose. The State could not have interfered with the day-to-day
functioning of a statutory authority. Section 72 of the 1973 Act authorizes the
State to exercise superintendence and control over the acts and proceedings of
the officers appointed under Section 3 and the authorities constituted under
the Act but thereby the State cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Board
itself. The Act does not contemplate any independent function by the State
except as specifically provided therein.... the State in exercise of its
executive power could not have directed that lands meant for use for commercial
purposes may be used for industrial purposes..... the power of the State
Government to issue direction to the officers appended under Section 3 and the
authorities constituted under the Act is confined only to matters of policy and
not any other. Such matters of policy yet again must be in relation to
discharge of duties by the officers of the authority and not in derogation
thereof.... The direction of the Chief Minister being de'hors the provisions of
the Act is void and of no effect."
SC 97, this Court considered a case of dismissal of an 1 employee by an
authority other than the authority competent to pass such an order i.e. the
Municipal Commissioner, the order was held to be without jurisdiction and thus
could be termed to have been passed under the relevant Act. This Court held
that "to such a case the Statute under which action was purported to be
taken could afford no protection".
(2001) 6 SCC 260, this Court, after placing reliance upon a large number of its
earlier judgments, observed as under:
the system of Indian democratic governance as contemplated by the Constitution,
senior officers occupying key positions such as Secretaries are not supposed to
mortgage their own discretion, volition and decision-making authority and be
prepared to give way or being pushed back or pressed ahead at the behest of
politicians for carrying out commands having no sanctity in law. The Conduct
Rules of Central Government Services command the civil servants to maintain at
all times absolute integrity and devotion to duty and do nothing which is
unbecoming of a government servant. No government servant shall in the
performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of power conferred on
him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the
direction of his official superior." (Emphasis added) 1
Therefore, the law on the question can be summarised to the effect that no
higher authority in the hierarchy or an appellate or revisional authority can
exercise the power of the statutory authority nor the superior authority can
mortgage its wisdom and direct the statutory authority to act in a particular
manner. If the appellate or revisional Authority takes upon itself the task of
the statutory authority and passes an order, it remains unenforceable for the
reason that it cannot be termed to be an order passed under the Act.
Court considered the effect of action taken subsequent to passing of an interim
order in its disobedience and held that any action taken in disobedience of the
order passed by the Court would be illegal. Subsequent action would be a
while dealing with the similar issue held as under:
defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were
to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public
policy. When the Court intends a particular state of 1 affairs to exist while
it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be
maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The
Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the
alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes."
Singh & Ors, AIR 2007 SC 1386, this court held as under:
party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by
committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof.....
the wrong perpetrated by the respondents in utter disregard of the order of the
High Court should not be permitted to hold good."
Ltd. & Anr. AIR 1996 SC 2005, this court after making reference to many of
the earlier judgments held:
principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that
the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that
AIR 2008 SC 901, this Court while dealing with the similar issues held that
even a Court in exercise of its inherent 1 jurisdiction under Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the event of coming to the conclusion
that a breach to an order of restraint had taken place, may bring back the
parties to the same position as if the order of injunction has not been
view of the above, it is evident that any order passed by any authority in
spite of the knowledge of the interim order of the court is of no consequence
as it remains a nullity.
235, this Court considered the issue as to whether relief not asked for by a
party could be granted and that too without having proper pleadings. The Court
held as under:
is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside
the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found.
Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the
relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to
incorporate in it an alternative case."
similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Krishna 1 1991 SC 409,
observing that a party cannot be granted a relief which is not claimed.
Dealing with the same issue, this Court in Bharat Amratlal 475 held:
the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the court, however,
cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of
relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner."
Rath & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2744, this Court held that "the High Court
ought not to have granted reliefs to the respondents which they had not even
view of the above, law on the issue can be summarised that the Court cannot
grant a relief which has not been specifically prayed by the parties.
instant case requires to be examined in the light of the aforesaid certain
41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 reads as under:
Control by State Government-(1) The Authority, the Chairman or the
Vice-Chairman shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time
to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of this Act.
State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application
made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or
order passed by the authority or Chairman for the purpose of satisfying itself
as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or direction issued and may
pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think
that the State Government shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person
without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Clause (1) thereof empowers the State Government to issue general directions
which are necessary to properly enforce the provisions of the Act. Clause (3)
thereof make it 1 crystal clear that the State Government is a revisional
authority. Therefore, the scheme of the Act makes it clear that if a person is
aggrieved by an order of the authority, he can prefer an appeal before the
Appellate Authority i.e.
Commissioner and the person aggrieved of that order may file Revision
Application before the State Government. However, the State Government cannot
pass an order without giving opportunity of hearing to the person, who may be
the instant case, it is the revisional authority which has issued direction to
GDA to make allotment in favour of both the parties. Orders had been passed
without hearing the other party. The authority, i.e. GDA did not have the
opportunity to examine the case of either of the said parties. The High Court
erred in holding that Clause (1) of Section 41 empowers the State Government to
deal with the application of an individual. The State Government can take only
policy decisions as to how the statutory provisions would be enforced but
cannot deal with an individual 2 application. Revisional authority can exercise
its jurisdiction provided there is an order passed by the lower authority under
the Act as it can examine only legality or propriety of the order passed or
direction issued by the authority therein.
view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for
the State Government to entertain the applications of the said parties for
allotment of land directly and issue directions to GDA for allotment of land in
Admittedly, the interim order passed by the High Court in favour of Shri
Manohar Lal in Writ Petition No. 4159 of 1980 was in force and it restrained
the Authorities to make allotment of the land in dispute in favour of anyone
the State Government as well as the GDA remained fully alive of the factum of
subsistence of the said interim order as is evident from the correspondence
between them. In view of the law referred to hereinabove, order 2 passed by the
State Government in contravention of the interim order, remains unenforceable
in the writ petition filed by Shri Ugrasen relief sought was limited only to
quash the allotment made in favour of Shri Manohar Lal. No relief was sought
for making the allotment in favour of the writ petitioner/Shri Ugrasen.
the High Court vide impugned judgment and order has issued direction to make
the allotment in his favour.
are of the view that issuance of such a direction was not permissible in law.
Even otherwise as Shri Ugrasen's land had been acquired for roads, he could not
make application for taking benefit of the Land Policy, particularly, when the
Land Policy was not declared to be invalid or violative of equality clause
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
High Court failed to consider objections raised on behalf of GDA in its letter
dated 19.4.1980 to the State Government pointing out as follows:
Application of Ugrasen is entered on 31.12.1966 as the last entry in Postal
is at Sl. 15498.
is in different ink.
copy of application now submitted bears the date 13.12.1966.
is no signature on the cyclostyled copy.
Application was made in 1971 and was rejected in 1977 by Shri Watal. Decision
not challenged. Ugrasen kept quiet till 1980.
Mr. Jai Prakash was not working before 1979.
40. It is
settled legal proposition that burden lies on the person, who
alleges/avers/pleads for existence of a fact. Sh.
was95 under an obligation to establish the fact of submission of the
application in time. Entry in respect of his application has been made in
Postal Receipt Register. As said application was sent by post, Sh. Ugrasen
could explain as to whether the application was sent by Registered
Post/Ordinary Post or under Postal Certificate and as to 2 whether he could
produce the receipt, if any, for the same.
In such a
fact-situation, the application filed by Shri Ugrasen could not have been
entertained at all, even if he was entitled for the benefit of the Land Policy.
High Court committed an error observing that if the State Government had
allowed the application filed by Ugrasen it was implicit that delay, if any, in
making the claim stood95 condoned. Such an observation is not in consonance
with law for the reason that if there is a delay in filing application, the
question would arise as to whether the authority has a right to condone the
delay. Even if, the delay can be condoned, the authority had to examine as to
whether there was sufficient cause preventing the applicant to approach the
authority in time. But, once the delay has been considered without application
of mind, in a fact- situation like in the instant case, the question of deemed
condonation would not arise. More so, the High Court could not examine the
question of fact as to whether the application was made within time or not,
particularly, in view 2 of the fact that the authority had been making the
allotment though application had not been made at all in time and it was only
manipulation of the record of the authority with the collusion of its staff.
42. In fact,
such exercise by the State amounts to Gurdial Singh & Ors. AIR 1980 SC 319,
this Court dealing with such an issue observed as under:
malice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular
concept of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith which invalidates the exercise
of power - sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power and
oftentimes overlaps motives, passions and satisfaction - is the attainment of
ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of
gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the power is for the fulfilment of a
legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The
action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for
which the power is entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad,
but irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of power is influenced in
its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power
is vested the court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by
State Government, being the revisional authority, could not entertain directly
the applications by the said applicants, namely, Sh.Ugrasen and Sh. Manohar
Lal. The action of the State Government smacks of arbitrariness and is nothing
but abuse of power as the State Government deprived GDA to exercise its power
under the Act, and deprived the aggrieved party to file appeal against the
order of allotment. Thus, orders passed by the State Government stood vitiated.
More so, it was a clear cut case of colourable exercise of power.
far as the case of allotment in favour of Manohar Lal is concerned in more than
one respect, it is by no means better than the case of Ugrasen as the initial
allotment had been made by GDA in his favour consequent to the directions of
the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh who had no competence to deal with the
subject under the Statute and he has already been put in possession of a part
of allotted land in commercial area, contrary to the Land Policy.
are claims and counter claims regarding the dates of Section 6 declaration;
taking of possession of land;
making Awards so far as the land of Manohar Lal is concerned. As per the affidavit
filed by the Vice-Chairman, GDA, Section 6 declaration was made on 24.5.1965
invoking the urgency clause under section 17(1); possession was taken on
13.7.1965; and Award was made on 11.5.1970.
Lal preferred writ petition no.4159/1980 before the Allahabad High Court
stating that Section 6 declaration in respect of his land was made on
30.1.1969, possession was taken on 29.5.1969 and Award was made on 11.6.1971.
the parties considered it proper to place the authentic documents before the
Court so that the real facts be determined. In such a fact situation, we are
not in a position to decide as to whether Manohar Lal's application was filed
in time as he had claimed in the said writ petition that he filed the First
Application on 22.6.1969. However, one thing is clearly evident from the
affidavit filed by Vice Chairman, GDA that the land allotted to both of these
parties has been part of commercial area and not of residential 2 area. In view
thereof, any allotment made in favour of Manohar Lal so far, had been illegal
as the application could not have been entertained by the Chief Minister and
further appellant could not get allotment in commercial area.
Policy provided only for allotment of land in residential area.
fact of illegal allotment of land in commercial area has been brought to the
notice of the Court first time vide affidavit of the Vice-Chairman, GDA dated
is crystal clear that such facts had not been brought on record before the High
Court by GDA at any stage in any of the writ petitions nor it had been pointed
out to the State Government when applications of both these parties had been
entertained directly by the Chief Minister and the State Government. Only
explanation furnished by the Vice- Chairman, GDA, in his affidavit is that due
to inadvertence it escaped the notice of GDA that the plots had been
categorized as commercial in the Master Plan and could not be allotted in
favour of any applicant. Even today, the said 2 plots continue to be in
commercial area and not in residential area.
present appellants had also not disclosed that land allotted to them falls in
commercial area. When a person approaches a Court of Equity in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, he should
approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean
heart and clean objective. "Equally, the judicial process should never
become an instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the
Court to subvert justice." Who seeks equity must do equity. The legal
maxim "Jure naturaw aequum est neminum cum alterius detrimento et injuria
fieri locupletiorem", means that it is a law of nature that one should not
be enriched by the loss or injury to another. (vide Anand (1995) 1 SCC 242).
of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 1236, this Court observed as under:-
"The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only
in furtherance of interest of justice and not merely on the making out of a
legal point.....the interest of justice and the public interest coalesce. They
are very often one and the same. ..... The Courts have to weigh the public
interest vis-`-vis the private interest while exercising....any of their discretionary
powers (Emphasis added).
Distillery, AIR 1977 SC 781; and Sabia Khan & held that filing totally
misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Such a
litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as petition containing
misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose
amounts to abuse of the process of the 3 Court. A litigant is bound to make
"full and true disclosure of facts."
Bihar & Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 166; and Oswal Fats Division, Bareily & Ors.
JT 2010 (3) SC 510, this Court held that whenever the Court comes to the
conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be
justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse relief to the party. This
rule has been evolved out of need of the Courts to deter a litigant from
abusing the process of the Court by deceiving it.
view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that Shri Manohar Lal did
not approach the Court with discloser of true facts, and particularly, that he
had been allotted the land in the commercial area by GDA on the instruction of
the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
52. It is
a fit case for ordering enquiry or initiating proceedings for committing
criminal contempt of the Court as the parties succeeded in misleading the Court
by not disclosing the true facts. However, we are not inclined to waste court's
time further in these cases. Our experience has been that the so-called
administration is not likely to wake-up from its deep slumber and is never
interested to redeem the limping society from such hapless situations.
further apprehend that our pious hope that administration may muster the
courage one day to initiate disciplinary/criminal proceedings against such
applicants/erring officers/employees of the authority, may not come true.
However, we leave the course open for the State Government and GDA to take
decision in regard to these issues and as to whether GDA wants to recover the
possession of the land already allotted to these applicants in commercial area
contrary to the Land Policy or value thereof adjusting the amount of
compensation deposited by them, if any.
view of the above, Civil Appeal No. 974 of 2007 filed by GDA is allowed. The
Judgment and order of the High Court dated 22.7.2003 passed in Writ Petition
No. 6644 of 1989 is hereby set aside. Civil Appeal No. 973 of 2007 filed by
Manohar Lal is dismissed. No costs.
...................................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)