TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether acquisition of land for a Housing Board scheme for planned urban development and housing accommodation falls within "public utility" so as to attract the prohibition against interim stay under Article 226(6) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether, on the facts, interim stay was otherwise unwarranted because the petitioner was not in possession and no irreparable injury was shown.
Issue (i): Whether acquisition of land for a Housing Board scheme for planned urban development and housing accommodation falls within "public utility" so as to attract the prohibition against interim stay under Article 226(6) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The expression "public utility" was construed in a broad and common-sense manner, not as confined to services used by the entire community at once. The reasoning treated housing schemes, roads, amenities, and planned development as public welfare measures intended for a substantial section of the public, and held that utility does not cease to be public merely because actual enjoyment is by selected beneficiaries or users. The distinction between "public purpose" and "public utility" was rejected as having no real difference for the purpose of interim relief under Article 226(6).
Conclusion: The land acquisition for the Housing Board project was held to be a matter of public utility, and the interim stay was barred by Article 226(6) of the Constitution of India.
Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, interim stay was otherwise unwarranted because the petitioner was not in possession and no irreparable injury was shown.
Analysis: The record was treated as showing that possession had already been taken over by the authorities, and the petitioner's contrary claim was not accepted for the purpose of interim relief. It was also held that no house had yet been constructed on the open land, so the petitioner had not established any substantial irreparable injury. On ordinary principles governing injunctions, the balance of convenience was found to lie with the respondents.
Conclusion: Interim relief was found to be unjustified on the facts, independently of the constitutional bar.
Final Conclusion: The stay application failed both on the statutory prohibition against interim orders in public utility acquisitions and on the ordinary injunction principles, so the interim restraint was vacated.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Article 226(6) of the Constitution of India, "public utility" includes a housing and planned development scheme serving a substantial section of the public, and interim stay cannot be granted where such acquisition is shown and no irreparable injury is established.
TaxTMI 
