City & Industrial Devt.Corp vs Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors

contended that the first respondent is guilty of

suppression of material facts which itself is sufficient to

dismiss the writ petition. It was submitted that the

respondent was not the owner of the land at any point of

time and therefore no relief could have been granted in

the Writ Petition.

11. Shri R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondent contended that there is no

dispute as regards the title of the respondent inasmuch

as State of Maharashtra and District Collector through

their officers made a statement in the open court that

the land in question was not earlier acquired and the

same continued to be a private land. Shri Nariman also

relied on the averments made by the appellant herein in 1 0

the reply affidavit opposing the writ petition in the High

Court stating that CIDCO has come to know from the

Government letter that the land is a private land and

therefore, it had requested the Government to acquire

the land by following the due process of law.

12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.

13. The High Court in its decision appears to have

mostly relied upon the oral statement made through the

learned A.G.P. and also some vague averments made by

the appellant in its reply affidavit and accordingly

disposed of the Writ Petition directing the acquisition of

the land. The High Court did not consider as to what is

the effect of the said oral statement and the averments

made by the appellant in its reply affidavit. Whether

such an oral statement coupled with the averments

made to the effect that the land is a private land by 1 1

themselves would amount to recognising the title of the

respondent? The fact remains that there is no whisper in

the impugned order that Sir Khan Bahadur Hormasji

Bhiwandiwala Trust continued to be the true and

absolute owner of the land possessing valid and

subsisting title as on the date of the filing of the writ

petition. Nor there is any finding by the High Court as

regards the nature of the land which is one of the most

important factor that may have a vital bearing on the

issue as to the entitlement of the respondent to get any

relief in the writ petition. There is also no finding that

the writ petitioner who filed the Writ Petition as an

individual is the trustee of the said trust and thus

entitled to prosecute the litigation on behalf of the trust.

The High Court did not consider as to what is the effect

of filing of the Writ Petition claiming to be a trustee

without impleading the trust as the petitioner. The High

Court ignored the statement made by the respondent in 1 2

his Writ Petition about his representation to Tehsildar

requiring to record his name as an "heir". How can an

individual's name be recorded in the revenue records to

be an "heir" of a trust property? The High Court never

considered the effect of such a statement made by the

writ petitioner in the writ petition itself. The High Court

also did not consider whether the reliefs claimed could at

all be granted in a public law remedy under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

14. The High Court obviously relied upon the oral

statement purported to have been made by the officers

present in the court through the learned A.G.P. and

considered the same to be concession as regards the

title/ownership of the land in question. The appellant in

its reply affidavit merely referred to a letter received by

it from the Government informing it the land in question

to be a private land. We fail to appreciate as to how the

said statement and the averments made in the reply 1 3

affidavit amount to concession recognising the

title/ownership of the land in question in favour of the

respondent. Such a statement by itself cannot confer

title in respect of immovable properties on any

individual. The courts are not relieved of their burden to

weigh and evaluate the relevancy and effect of such

statements in adjudicating the lis between the parties.

15. The Writ petition was filed on 20th April, 2005 but

whereas the petitioner executed the Deed of

Confirmation on 13th April, 2005 describing himself as

vendor in favour of Ms. Hemlata Bedi and Urmish

Udani as the purchasers of the land in question. The

appellant in its review application filed in the High Court

pointed out that as on the date of the filing of the Writ

Petition the first respondent was not the owner of the

land in as much as he executed the Deed of

Confirmation on 13th April, 2005 itself. When the 1 4

appellant pointed out this in its review application the

High Court brushed aside the same and dismissed the

Review Petition relying on the explanation offered by

the writ petitioner that the writ petition was drafted

much earlier to 13th April, 2005 for filing in the court on

20th April, 2005. The fact remains that the respondent

never brought this fact on record during the pendency of

the writ petition. The High Court ought to have

considered whether there was any suppression of

material facts from the court. The High Court did not

consider the effect of respondent describing himself as

the vendor in the Confirmation Deed which is not in tune

with the recitals in the Deed of Conveyance dated 26th

August, 1982. The High Court did not address to itself as

to whether such complex and disputed facts could be

satisfactorily adjudicated in a proceeding under Article

226 of the Constitution. The Court was carried away by

the fact that the relief had already been granted 1 5

inasmuch as the acquisition proceedings have

commenced after the disposal of the Writ Petition. We

are constrained to express our reservation about the

manner and approach of the High Court in disposing of

the Writ Petition and the Review Petition.

16. In our view, the High Court ought to have

examined the contents of Deed of Confirmation as well

as the Deed of Conveyance dated 26th August, 1982

before granting the relief as prayed for by the

respondent. It is plainly evident from the Deed of

Conveyance dated 26th August, 1982 that it was

executed in favour of only one person namely Ms.

Hemlata Bedi as the purchaser whereas in the Deed of

Confirmation the name of Urmish Udani is also shown as

the purchaser along with Ms. Hemlata Bedi. It is not

clear from the document as to how all of a sudden

Urmish Udani's name is shown as the purchaser. The 1 6

circumstances may lend credence to the submission

made by learned senior counsel for the appellant that

Urmish Udani did not purchase the land but the

litigation. However, we do not wish to express any

conclusive opinion on the question as to whether the

parties are indulging in any speculative litigation. These

are the aspects which ought to have been taken into

consideration by the High Court before granting relief to

the respondent.

In the absence of finding on the vital issue noticed

herein above no relief could have been granted to the

respondent.

17. Having regard to the magnitude and complexity of

the case the High Court in all fairness ought to have

directed the official respondents to file their detailed

counter affidavits and produce the entire material and

the records in their possession for its consideration. Be 1 7

it noted the reply affidavit filed by the appellant herein

obviously was confined to opposing the admission of writ

petition. The writ petition was disposed of at the

admission stage, of course after issuing Rule as is

evident from the order : "Rule. Heard forthwith...."

18. We are constrained to confess the case has left us

perplexed. The stance adopted by the State of

Maharashtra and the District Collector is stranger than

fiction. It is difficult to discern as to why they remained

silent spectators without effectively participating in the

proceedings before the Court. No explanation is forth

coming as to why they have chosen not to file their

replies to the Writ Petition in the High Court. However,

in these appeals the State Government as well as the

appellant filed detailed affidavits disputing each and

every statement and assertion of the writ petitioner

made in the Writ Petition opposing grant of any relief 1 8

whatsoever to the writ petitioner. But even in this court

the State of Maharashtra having filed its affidavit did not

participate in the proceedings and rendered any

assistance in the matter.

19. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our

hands that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the

jurisdiction of a High Court to issue appropriate writs

particularly a writ of Mandamus is highly discretionary.

The relief cannot be claimed as of right. One of the

grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching

the High Court is guilty of unexplained delay and the

laches. Inordinate delay in moving the court for a Writ

is an adequate ground for refusing a Writ. The principle

is that courts exercising public law jurisdiction do not

encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming

matters where the rights of third parties may have

accrued in the interregnum.

1 9

20. The appellant in its reply opposing the

admission of Writ Petition in clear and categorical terms

pleaded that the writ petitioner has kept silent for more

than 35 years and filed belated writ petition. It was

asserted that on account of inordinate delay and laches

the writ petition suffers from legal infirmities and

therefore liable to be rejected in limine. The High Court

did not record any finding whatsoever and ignored such

a plea of far reaching consequence.

21. As noticed hereinabove the High Court obviously

was impressed by the oral statement made during the

course of the hearing of the writ petition and some

vague and self defeating averments made in the affidavit

filed by the appellant in the High Court.

22. In our opinion, the High Court while exercising its

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 2 0

Constitution is duty bound to take all the relevant facts

and circumstances into consideration and decide for

itself even in the absence of proper affidavits from the

State and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at

all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of

the material made available on record. There is nothing

like issuing an ex-parte writ of Mandamus, order or

direction in a public law remedy. Further, while

considering validity of impugned action or inaction the

court will not consider itself restricted to the pleadings of

the State but would be free to satisfy itself whether any

case as such is made out by a person invoking its extra

ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution. The court while exercising its jurisdiction

under Article 226 is duty bound to consider whether :

(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex

and disputed questions of facts and whether they

can be satisfactorily resolved; 2 1

(b) petition reveals all material facts;

(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective

remedy for the resolution of the dispute;

(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of

unexplained delay and laches;

(e) ex facie barred by any laws of Limitation;

(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by

any valid law; and host of other factors.

The court in appropriate cases in its discretion

may direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case

may be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant

facts truly and accurately for the consideration of the

court and particularly in cases where public revenue and

public interest are involved. Such directions always are

required to be complied with by the State. No relief

could be granted in a public law remedy as a matter of

course only on the ground that the State did not file its

counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. Further, 2 2

empty and self-defeating affidavits or statements of

Government spokesmen by themselves do not form

basis to grant any relief to a person in a public remedy

to which he is not otherwise entitled to in law.

23. None of these parameters have been kept in view

by the High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition

and the Review Petition.

24. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the

impugned orders and remit the matter for fresh

consideration by the High Court on merits.

Consequently, all the notifications issued under the

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 including

the award passed and the reference made to the Civil

Court are set aside.

2 3

25. During the course of hearing of these appeals not

only affidavits and additional affidavits but also some

documents which may have a vital bearing on the merits

of the case are placed on record. These affidavits and

the documents filed into this court shall form part of the

writ proceedings. The matter requires fresh

consideration by the High Court.

26. Parties are given liberty to supplement their

respective pleadings if they so choose and file additional

documents, if any, which shall be received by the High

Court for its consideration. We may hasten to add that

we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the

case. All the contentions of both sides are expressly

kept open for their determination by the High Court.

27. It will not be appropriate to dispose of the matter

without one word about the conduct of the State 2 4

Government reflecting highly unsatisfactory state of

affairs. We express our grave concern as to the manner

in which State has conducted in this case. It is the

constitutional obligation and duty of the State to place

true and relevant facts by filing proper affidavits

enabling the court to discharge its constitutional duties.

The State and other authorities are bound to produce

the complete records relating to the case once Rule is

issued by the court. It is needless to remind the

Governments that they do not enjoy the same amount

of discretion as that of a private party even in the matter

of conduct of litigation. The Governments do not enjoy

any unlimited discretion in this regard. No one need to

remind the State that they represent the collective will of

the society.

28. The State in the present case instead of filing its

affidavit through higher officers of the Government 2 5

utilised the lower ones to make oral statements and that

too through its A.G.P. in the High Court. This malady

requires immediate remedy. We hope the Government

shall conduct itself in a responsible manner and assist

the High Court by placing the true and relevant facts by

filing a proper affidavit and documents that may be

available with it. We also hope and trust that the Legal

Advisors of the Government will display greater

competence and attention in drafting affidavits.

Let not the fence eat the grass.

29. With these observations, we allow the appeals

accordingly.

..........................................J. (S.H. Kapadia)

..........................................J. (B. Sudershan Reddy) 2 6

New Delhi;

November 14, 2008