1996 (9) TMI 612 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Invalidates Land Allotment, Emphasizes Void Actions Have No Legal Rights

SECRETARY, JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAIPUR Versus DAULAT MAL JAIN

The Supreme Court found the Minister of Urban Development, Government of Rajasthan, and other officials guilty of misusing public office for personal ... - Issues Involved:1. Misuse of public office by Minister of Urban Development, Government of Rajasthan.2. Validity of land allotment by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953.3. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution concerning equality.4. Legitimacy of the High Court's direction for allotment of land to respondents.5. Public policy and its misuse for personal gain.6. Legal consequences of void and ultra vires actions by public officials.Summary:1. Misuse of Public Office:The judgment reveals the blatant misuse of public office by the Minister of Urban Development, Government of Rajasthan, as Chairman of the appellant authority. The Lokayukta's enquiry report dated November 12, 1992, u/s 10 of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act, 1973, established prima facie misuse of official position by the Minister and other officials to favor influential individuals, causing wrongful gain to them and loss to the Jaipur Development Authority and the public.2. Validity of Land Allotment:The Supreme Court referenced its earlier decision in Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam & Ors., [1994] 4 SCC 370, which held that the LAO was devoid of power and jurisdiction u/s 11 to allot part of the acquired land to landowners in determining compensation u/s 23(1). The award allotting land was void ab initio and conferred no right on the erstwhile khatedar/owner to claim possession. Consequently, the execution of such a decree and delivery of possession was invalid, void, and inexecutable.3. Application of Article 14:The respondents argued that denial of land allotment to them, while others had received it, violated the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court's relief was based on the premise of violation of equality. However, the Supreme Court held that Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegalities or ultra vires actions. It emphasized that equality cannot be claimed for wrongful acts in furtherance of void orders.4. Legitimacy of High Court's Direction:The High Court had directed the appellants to deliver possession of plots to the respondents based on sales and allotment letters. The Supreme Court found this direction erroneous as it legitimized void actions. It held that judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate illegalities and ultra vires acts.5. Public Policy and Misuse:The judgment scrutinized the so-called public policy behind the allotments, finding it to be a mockery and a device for illegal gratification. The policy did not bear any insignia of public purpose but appeared to be a misuse of public office for personal gain. The actions of the Minister and bureaucrats were ultra vires and in utter disregard of the statute and rules.6. Legal Consequences of Void Actions:The Supreme Court reiterated that void acts, such as those by the LAO and the Minister, do not confer any legal right or title. It held that the respondents' purchases from Chhote Lal, the erstwhile owner, were void as he had no right, title, or interest in the acquired land. The Court emphasized that illegal actions cannot be legitimized by invoking Article 14 or any other legal provision.Conclusion:The Supreme Court modified the High Court's direction, ordering allotment of 250 sq. yds. plots to the respondents in another scheme at the rate prevailing when the original allotments were made. This direction was not to be used as a precedent. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.