Mala fides and land resumption: unsupported vendetta claims fail where lease breaches and notice-based fairness are established.

Mala fides in land resumption requires proof by material evidence; unsupported allegations of political vendetta will not invalidate governmental action. Where the State's ownership is accepted and the grant or lease reserves a right of resumption for breach or public purpose, that contractual power can be enforced upon established violations such as unauthorised subletting. Natural justice is satisfied when a show-cause notice is issued, a reply is received, and a personal hearing is granted; refusal of access to policy-related records causes no prejudice in the circumstances. The resumption proceedings were upheld as valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government's action in resuming the land was vitiated by mala fides or political vendetta. (ii) Whether the Government had the authority to resume the lands and enforce the terms of the grant and lease. (iii) Whether the respondents were denied adequate opportunity and procedural fairness before the impugned resumption.

Issue (i): Whether the Government's action in resuming the land was vitiated by mala fides or political vendetta.

Analysis: The allegations of political vendetta were not supported by substantive material. The surrounding circumstances showed that the action was taken by the Government as owner of the lands and was linked to stated public purposes and alleged violations of the lease conditions. The burden to establish mala fides remained on the respondents, and the materials on record did not establish any personal or extraneous motive sufficient to invalidate the decision.

Conclusion: The plea of mala fides and political vendetta was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Government had the authority to resume the lands and enforce the terms of the grant and lease.

Analysis: The respondents had accepted the Government's title under the agreement dated 28.4.1980, and the agreement expressly reserved the Government's right to resume the lands for breach of conditions or for public purpose. The record also disclosed unauthorised subletting and other violations of the conditions governing use of the lands. On that basis, the Government's power to resume the lands and to act on the breaches stood established.

Conclusion: The Government's authority to resume the lands was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondents were denied adequate opportunity and procedural fairness before the impugned resumption.

Analysis: A show-cause notice had been issued, the respondents were given an opportunity to reply, and a personal hearing was fixed. The requested records related to governmental policy and public purpose, and non-permission to inspect them did not cause prejudice in the circumstances. The Court held that the requirements of natural justice were sufficiently met.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice was found.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the common order of the learned single Judge was set aside, and the Government's resumption proceedings were sustained as valid.

Ratio Decidendi: An allegation of mala fides must be proved by material evidence, and where the State's ownership, the contractual right of resumption, and breach of lease conditions are established, judicial review will not invalidate a resumption order merely on unsupported assertions of political vendetta.

---