TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s enforceable?; and (c) Whether Court can grant relief which had not been asked for? 3. Facts 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 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. The 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-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sen 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 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. 7. 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. 8. Shri 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. There had been manipulation in registration of the said application and it has been surrounded with suspicious circumstances. The application of Shri Ugrasen had been considered direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....velopment 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. 13. In Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa & Ors. AIR 1991 SC 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 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. 14. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 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. The 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 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." 17. In Chandrika Jha Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 322, this Court while dealing with the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, held as under: "The 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... through L.Rs.) AIR 1971 SC 97, this Court considered a case of dismissal of an 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". 21. In Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 260, this Court, after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments, observed as under: "In 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them." 27. In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund, AIR 2008 SC 901, this Court while dealing with the similar issues held that even a Court in exercise of its inherent 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 violated. 28. In 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. 29. In Messrs. Trojan & Co. Vs. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar AIR 1953 SC 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: "It 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 plai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. Clause (3) thereof make it 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. Divisional 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 adversely affected. 36. In 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 application. Revisional authority can exercise its jurisdiction provided there is an order passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who alleges/avers/pleads for existence of a fact. Sh. Ugrasen 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 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. 41. The 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. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment 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. 45. There are claims and counter claims regarding the dates of Section 6 declaration; taking of possession of land; and of 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. Manohar 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. None of 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 sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....997 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). 49. In M/s Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. Vs. H.B. Munshi & Anr. AIR 1970 SC 898; State of Haryana Vs. Karnal Distillery, AIR 1977 SC 781; and Sabia Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 2284, this Court 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 Court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts." 50. In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony Bai & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 718; S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 166; and Oswal Fats &....