Custodian Of Evacuee Properties vs Amjadali Gazanfarli Bukhari .

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5865-67 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.10930-10932 of 2008)

Custodian of Evacuee Properties ... Appellants

Versus

Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari & Ors. ... Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5874-76 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.22365-22367 of 2008) CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5868-70 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.20797-20799 of 2008) AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5871-73 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.20801-20803 of 2008)

JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1 st Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2014.07.16 17:05:37 IST Reason: November, 2007 delivered in Civil Application

No.1437 of 2007 with Civil Application No. 1438 of 2

2007 with Civil Application No. 1439 of 2007 in

Misc. Civil Application No. 2706 of 2006 in Special

Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 by the High

Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, these appeals have

been filed by some of the original respondents.

3. At the time of hearing of these appeals, on behalf

of the appellants several arguments had been

advanced. Most of them were in the nature of preliminary objections because according to the

learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the

original petition, Special Civil Application

No.15239 of 2006 had been filed by way of a

Public Interest Litigation by Shri Nirav Shah after

considerably long period and that too when the

aggrieved person had already filed a petition on

the same subject matter. It had also been

submitted that the PIL ought not to have been

entertained by the High Court because the one

who had interest in the litigation had already filed

Special Civil Application No.21996 of 2005 and

the said fact had also been referred to in the PIL 3

filed by Shri Nirav Shah. It had been, therefore,

prayed that the impugned judgment deserved to

be quashed.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing

for the contesting respondents had supported the

impugned judgment delivered by the High Court

and had submitted that the appeals deserved

dismissal.

5. Before dealing with the facts of the case, we think

it necessary to note that the main petition, viz.

Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 had

been filed by Shri Nirav Shah, an advocate, by

way of a Public Interest Litigation. It is also

pertinent to note that prior to filing of the said

petition, Special Civil Application No.21996 of

2005 had been filed by Shri Bukhari, respondent

no.1 herein, who was a person interested in the

property in question and the said fact was known

to Shri Shah, as pendency of the said petition

had been referred to in Special Civil Application No.15239 of 2006. There appears to be 4

similarities in the prayers made in both these

petitions.

6. Special Civil Application No.15239 of 2006 had

been finally disposed of on 26 th September, 2006

by the High Court of Gujarat. While disposing of

the said petition, a direction had been given to the

State of Gujarat and the said direction had been

duly complied with by the State of Gujarat by

passing a Memorandum dated 21st December,

2006.

7. Immediately upon disposal of Special Civil

Application No.15239 of 2006, on or about 9 th

October, 2006, Misc. Civil Application No. 2706 of

2006 had been filed in the said disposed of

petition for some interim protection and

directions.Moreover, three more applications were

also filed in the said proceedings thereafter. When

Misc. Civil Application No. 2706 of 2006 was

notified for hearing, the entire petition was

re-heard by the High Court, though it was not

within the scope of the application for which Misc. 5

Civil Application No. 2706 of 2006 had been filed

and without looking into the fact that the final

direction given in Special Civil Application

No.15239 of 2006 had already been complied

with under Memorandum dated 21st December,

2006 by the State of Gujarat, the impugned

judgment was delivered by the High Court.

8. Looking at the peculiar facts of the case, we do

feel that an effort had been made to revive or

re-hear the Special Civil Application, which had

already been finally disposed of, by filing Misc. Civil Application No. 2706 of 2006. Prayer in the

said Misc. Application was that status quo should

be maintained till the State of Gujarat takes final

decision in pursuance of the final order passed in

Special Civil Application No.15239 of 2006. The

High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by

virtually giving a second hearing in a petition

which had been disposed of earlier merely

because Misc. Civil Application No.2706 of 2006

had been filed only for some interlocutory orders 6

and that application had also become infructuous

because even the final direction given in the main

petition had been complied with.

9. In our opinion, the present case is nothing but an

abuse of process of law. The matter has been

made bulky by placing several orders and records

which are really not relevant.

10. In pursuance of the final direction, the

Government of Gujarat had issued a

Memorandum dated 21st December, 2006,

whereby the Government of Gujarat had passed a

detailed speaking order narrating all relevant

facts and had come to the final conclusion that

the entire matter had become infructuous and

nothing further was required to be done. The

Memorandum referred to hereinabove has

attained finality as it appears that none has

challenged the same so far.

11. At the time when the said Misc. Application was

heard, the State of Gujarat had already passed a

final order under Memorandum dated 21st 7

December, 2006 and therefore, the said Misc. Application had already become infructuous. In

spite of the said fact, without taking into account

a well reasoned order, the High Court went on to

pass the impugned order dated 1st November,

2007.

12. The High Court of Gujarat had virtually reopened

the case and taken a decision without taking into

account the facts duly recorded in the

Memorandum issued by the Government on 21 st

December, 2006.

13. It is very strange as to how after disposal of the

case, in a Misc. Application, which had been filed

only for the purpose of maintenance of status quo

during the pendency of some proceedings, the

Court heard the matter again and that too when

the said Misc. Application had become

infructuous.

14. In our opinion, final decision had already been

taken by the State of Gujarat in pursuance of the

direction given by the High Court of Gujarat in 8

Special Civil Appln. No. 15239 of 2006 on 21 st

December, 2006 and therefore, nothing further

was required to be done by the High Court. We

are, therefore, of the view that Misc. Civil

Application No. 2706 of 2006 and subsequent

Civil Applications filed in Special Civil Application

No. 15239 of 2006 should not have been

entertained by the High Court after the

Government of Gujarat had issued Memorandum

dated 21st December, 2006.

15. In view of the aforestated set of circumstances,

the impugned order dated 1st November, 2007

passed in a Public Interest Litigation is quashed

and set aside.

16. We may also record the fact that even Shri

Bukhari, who was claiming some interest in the

property in question and who had filed Special

Civil Application No.21996 of 2005 had

withdrawn the said petition on 18th December,

2009, after the Memorandum dated 21st

December, 2006 was passed without challenging 9

the said Memorandum and in view of the said fact

also this Public Interest Litigation deserves to be

brought to an end.

17. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

.........................J (ANIL R. DAVE)

..........................J (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi;

June 30, 2014.

10

REVISED

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.6 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10930-10932/2008

CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTIES Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

AMJADALI GAZANFARLI BUKHARI & ORS. Respondents(s)

WITH SLP(C) No. 20797-20799/2008 SLP(C) No. 20801-20803/2008 SLP(C) No. 22365-22367/2008

Date : 30/06/2014 These petitions were called on for Judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv.

Mr. Nikhil Goel , Adv.

Mr. Rutwik Panda , Adv.

Ms. Hemantika Wahi , Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Ankit Shah, Adv.

Mr. S.G. Shah, Adv.

Mr. Shray Kapoor, Adv.

Mr. Sitesh Narayan Singh,Adv.

Mr. Vivek R. Mohanty, Adv.

Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Adv.

Mr. Akshat Anand, Adv.

Mr. Syed Ali Ahmad, Adv.

Mr. Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Adv.

Mr. S. S. Bandhyopadhyay,Adv.

Mr. Mohan Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv.

Mr. T. Mahipal, Adv.

Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay , Adv.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain , Adv.

11

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronouned the

Non-Reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising His

Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

Application for impleadment is rejected.

The Civil Appeals are allowed.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr. P.A. Assistant Registrar

(Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on file)