Suneeta Devi vs Avinash

2024 INSC 194 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 20422 of 2019)

SUNEETA DEVI .…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

AVINASH AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Matter was called twice but no one appeared on behalf of the

respondents.

3. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant being

aggrieved by the order dated 3rd July, 2019 passed in Writ-C No.

15225 of 2019, by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and

3 herein was allowed and the resolution/proposal dated 2nd Signature Not Verified

September, 2018 issued by the Land Management Committee and Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.03.11 17:44:29 IST Reason: 1 its approval dated 17th September, 2018 by the State authorities

was quashed.

4. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant

appeal are that a primary school situated in the village Mai

Kharagpur, tehsil Lalganj, district Azamgarh was found to be

falling on the proposed alignment of the National Highway and

accordingly, the same was demolished by the National Highways

Authority of India (for short ‘NHAI’) for the purposes of

construction of the highway.

5. The villagers requested the NHAI to construct new primary

school in the village which was accepted by the NHAI. The Land

Management Committee issued a proposal identifying and

providing a plot of land in the village for the construction of the

new primary school and forwarded the same for approval to the

State authorities vide communication dated 2nd September, 2018.

The proposal was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Lalganj(for short ‘SDO’) vide order dated 17th September, 2018 and

NHAI started construction of the school.

6. In order to challenge the said proposal, respondent Nos. 1

and 2 herein i.e. Avinash and Ram Jee filed a writ petition in the

Allahabad High Court styling it to be a Public Interest Litigation

2 being PIL No. 4648 of 2018. It is relevant to mention here that in

this PIL, no such assertion was made that the plot of land in

question had ever been allotted to the private respondents being

the writ petitioners in the PIL. The said PIL came to be dismissed

by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide order dated

27th October, 2018 observing that whatever steps had been taken

by the authorities being the members of the Gram Sabha, the

objection thereto by the respondents was nothing but an attempt

to interfere in public work. It was also held that no public interest

was involved in the petition.

7. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein did not rest satisfied

with the rejection of their PIL and preferred Writ-C No. 10806 of

2019 challenging the proposal dated 2nd September, 2018 praying

to restrain the NHAI authorities from constructing the primary

school on the Plot No. 821M in village Mai Kharagpur.

8. Writ-C No. 10806 of 2019 preferred by the respondent Nos.

1, 2 and 3 was held to be not maintainable and came to be

dismissed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide

order dated 18th April, 2019 observing that since the dispute

related to landed property, it could not be adjudicated upon by

High Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the

3 Constitution of India and liberty was granted to the writ

petitioners(respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein) to avail appropriate

relief by filing a civil suit before the Civil Court in accordance with

law.

9. Concealing the factum of filing the aforesaid two writ

petitions, the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, preferred yet

another writ petition being Writ-C No. 15225 of 2019 in the

Allahabad High Court assailing the validity and legality of the

resolution/proposal dated 2nd September, 2018 of the Land

Management Committee and its approval by SDO vide order dated

17th September, 2018.

10. It may be mentioned that a pertinent declaration was made

by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, the original writ

petitioners in Writ-C No. 15525 of 2019 that the petition which

they had filed in the High Court, was the first writ petition of its

kind.

11. The High Court seems to have proceeded in hot haste and

immediately on the first listing of the writ petition, the standing

counsel for State of U.P. was summoned and directed to obtain

instructions. The matter was posted to the very next day i.e. 3rd

July, 2019 and without issuing notice to the other respondents

4 including the appellant herein, who was an impleaded respondent

in the writ petition, and merely taking note of the oral submissions

of the standing counsel, the writ petition was allowed by order

dated 3rd July, 2019 holding that disputed plot No.821M vested in

the allotees(original writ petitioners being respondent Nos. 1, 2 and

3 herein) and the Land Management Committee or SDO had no

right to reserve this land for construction of a primary school. The

resolution dated 2nd September, 2018 and the approval by the SDO

dated 17th September, 2018 were declared to be illegal and were

set aside.

12. The respondent before the High Court is in appeal before this

Court seeking to assail the order dated 3rd July, 2019.

13. A stay was granted by this Court on the operation of the

impugned order. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

private respondents (respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 being original writ

petitioners) and the same is taken on record. However, when the

matter was taken up for hearing, no one appeared to contest the

matter on behalf of these respondents.

14. Learned counsel representing the appellant made an

emphatic statement that the school in question has already been

constructed and is operational on the disputed plot of land which

5 was a government land. He urged that factum of filing of two

earlier writ petitions with similar prayers was concealed by

respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, while filing writ petition being

Writ-C No. 15225 of 2019. Furthermore, the appellant being the

impleaded respondent in the writ petition, was never heard by the

High Court because the writ petition was allowed without issuing

any formal notice.

15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions made at bar and have gone through the material

available on record.

16. On a perusal of the admitted facts as emanating from record,

we are persuaded to hold that the impugned order passed by the

High Court smacks of arbitrariness and perversity. The writ

petition filed claiming title on the disputed plot of land was taken

up in hot haste and was allowed without issuing formal notice to

all the respondents. Even the State authorities were not given

proper opportunity of filing a counter. The standing counsel was

instructed to appear without any formal notice being issued and

was given a single day’s opportunity to present the factual report.

Based on the factual report and noting the oral submissions of the

standing counsel, the writ petition came to be allowed by the High

6 Court quashing the proposal dated 2nd September, 2018 and

approval by SDO dated 17th September, 2018. The manner in

which the proceedings were undertaken indicates that the High

Court was keen on not allowing the respondents therein to be

heard in the writ proceedings. The original writ petitioners-

respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein had apparently made false and

misleading averments in the opening para of the Writ-C No.15225

of 2019, that no previous writ petition had been filed craving

similar relief. As a matter of fact, the writ petition deserved

rejection with exemplary costs because as noted above, the factum

of filing of the previous two writ petitions was concealed by the

respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3-original writ petitioners. The writ

petition was manifestly tainted on account of concealment of

material facts. Even in the counter affidavit filed in the present

case, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3-original writ petitioners have

not disputed that the factum of filing of the previous two writ

petitions not being disclosed while filing the Writ-C No. 15225 of

2019.

17. However, since no one has appeared to defend the matter on

behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3-original writ petitioners,

we refrain from imposing cost in the matter.

7

18. In the wake of discussion made hereinabove, the impugned

order dated 3rd July, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is found to be suffering from

patent illegality, perversity and having been passed in sheer

violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the same is

quashed and set aside.

19. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………………….J. (B.R. GAVAI)

………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

March 11, 2024

8