V.Krishnamurthy And Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors

V. Krishnamurthy & Anr. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the final

judgment and order dated 11.04.2008 passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos.1030

& 1031 of 1998 whereby the Division Bench of the

High Court allowed the appeals filed by the

respondent­State and set aside the order dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 19.06.1998 of the Single Judge in W.P. Nos.11058 & ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.03.26 17:53:47 IST

11059/1989.

Reason:

1

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in

these appeals, it is necessary to set out a few relevant

facts infra.

3. The appellants herein are the writ petitioners and

the respondents herein are the respondents in the writ

petitions out of which these appeals arise.

4. The Agricultural Horticultural Society(Society) is

the appellant in C.A. No.7704/2009 which is

registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration

Act, 1975 whereas the appellant in C.A. No.7703 of

2009 is its Secretary. The State of Tamil Nadu­

respondent No.1 herein had allotted the land in

question to the appellant­Society on certain terms and

conditions by agreement dated 28.04.1980.

5. By order dated 05.08.1989 (GO Ms. No.1259),

the respondent­State resumed the land in question in

terms of clause 4 of the allotment order for public

purpose, namely, development of sports facilities

2 without affecting the environment and development of

horticulture and horticulture research.

6. The appellant­Society felt aggrieved by the said

order and filed two Writ Petitions (Nos.11058 and

11059 of 1989) in the Madras High Court. The

challenge to the order was essentially based on the

plea of mala fides. The Single Judge of the High Court,

by order dated 19.06.1998, allowed the writ petitions

and quashed the resumption order dated 05.08.1989.

7. The respondent­State felt aggrieved and filed two

writ appeals (Nos.1030 & 1031/1998) before the

Division Bench of the High Court. Earlier, the writ

appeals were withdrawn but later on they were

restored to their files on an application made by the

State in that behalf for their disposal according to law.

8. By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed

the writ appeals and while setting aside the order

passed by the Single Judge dismissed the writ

3 petitions giving rise to filing of these appeals by the

writ petitioners in this Court.

9. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration in these appeals, is whether the Division

Bench was justified in allowing the appeals and, in

consequence, was justified in upholding the

resumption order dated 05.08.1989 of the respondent­

State in relation to the land in question.

10. Heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior

counsel for the appellants and Mr. Balaji Srinivasa,

learned AAG for the respondent­State.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no

merit in these appeals.

12. As mentioned above, the appellants (writ

petitioners) had impugned the resumption order dated

05.08.1989 essentially on the plea based on mala

fides. This plea of mala fides was based on political

rivalry. According to the appellants, since they were

4 the members of the opposition party, the party in

power at that time issued the impugned resumption

order.

13. This plea found favour to the writ court (Single

Judge) but the Division Bench reversed the view of the

Single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions. In the

other words, the Division Bench held that a plea of

mala fides raised by the appellants (writ petitioners) to

impugn the action was not factually and legally

sustainable.

14. In this Court also, the learned counsel for the

appellants (writ petitioners) reiterated the same plea of

mala fides for assailing the resumption notice dated

05.08.1989 but we find no merit therein for the

following reasons:

15. First, admittedly the land in question belongs to

the State; Second, clause 4 of the allotment order

empowers the State to resume the land either in the

event of violation of any of the terms and conditions of

5 the allotment order by the appellant or if it is required

for public purpose, the State is entitled to exercise

their right of resumption of the land; and Third, the

State admittedly exercised the right of resumption of

the land for a public purpose.

16. A plea of mala fides, in our view, has no factual

and legal foundation to sustain because we find that it

is only based on the averment that since the appellant

happened to be a member of the opposition party, the

party in power at that time had taken the impugned

action to resume the land against them. Such

averments by itself do not constitute a plea of mala

fides without there being any substantial material in

its support. In our view, the appellants having failed

to point out any legal infirmity in the resumption order

except to take the plea based on mala fides, the

Division Bench was right in upholding the resumption

order as being legal and in conformity with clause 4 of

the allotment order. We concur with the view taken by

6 the Division Bench calling for no interference.

Needless to observe, the State will ensure that the land

in question would only be used for the public purpose

and not for other purposes.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants further

pointed out from the impugned order that the Division

Bench has made some disparaging remarks against

them at some places in the impugned order. In our

view, those remarks were irrelevant for deciding the

short controversy involved in the case.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

fail and are accordingly dismissed.

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

…...……..................................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi;

March 26, 2019

7