Supreme Court dismisses appeal on illegal land transactions, upholding principle of invalidity

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the illegality of the land transactions and the lack of maintainability of the writ petition. The Court reinforced the principle that illegal actions cannot be validated by subsequent developments, stating, "If an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage." The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of inter-departmental communications.
2. Legality of land transactions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
3. Possession and abatement of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
4. Maintainability of the writ petition.
5. Equitable discretion in writ jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Inter-departmental Communications:
The appellants sought to quash inter-departmental communications dated 30th June 2008 and 18th July 2008, fearing dispossession from the land they claimed to possess. The Supreme Court noted that these communications were internal and did not provide a basis for a writ petition. The Court stated, "We fail to understand as to how the contents of such a communication between two officers of the departments of the government can be the subject matter of the writ petition."

2. Legality of Land Transactions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:
The original tenure holders did not challenge the assessment orders declaring their land as surplus, and these orders attained finality. Transfers made by the tenure holders post-assessment were deemed null and void under Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act 1976. The Court upheld the High Court's view that the sale to Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti was void, stating, "We do not see any cogent reason to take a contrary view." The appellants failed to provide the sale deeds or evidence of genuine transactions.

3. Possession and Abatement of Proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999:
The appellants argued that since the State did not take possession under Section 10(6) of the Act 1976, the proceedings abated with the commencement of the Act 1999. The Court agreed to an extent, stating, "All proceedings pending before any court/authority under the Act 1976, stood abated automatically on commencement of the Act 1999 in force, provided the possession of the land involved in a particular case had not been taken by the State."

4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The Court found the writ petition not maintainable as it was based on internal communications and not on any order passed under the Act 1976. However, since the High Court decided the case on merit, the Supreme Court also addressed the merits. The Court emphasized, "The writ petition was certainly not maintainable."

5. Equitable Discretion in Writ Jurisdiction:
The Court reiterated that equitable discretion in writ jurisdiction must be exercised to promote justice and not to validate illegal actions. The appellants' failure to provide necessary documents and evidence led the Court to dismiss their plea. The Court stated, "The present appeal does not present any special feature warranting exercise of equitable discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the appellants."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the illegality of the land transactions and the lack of maintainability of the writ petition. The Court reinforced the principle that illegal actions cannot be validated by subsequent developments, stating, "If an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage." The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---