Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mridula Gupta vs The State Of Rajasthan on 31 July, 2017
Bench: Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 380 OF 2017
MRIDULA GUPTA & ANR. ...PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 383 OF 2017
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.380 of 2017 and Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.383 of 2017 and Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-State.
It appears that the petitioners have violated the orders passed by this Court and the High Court which attained finality with greatest impunity by way Signature Not Verified of filing the petitions virtually against the order Digitally signed by HEMALATHA MOHAN Date: 2017.08.11 17:17:16 IST Reason: passed by this Court itself under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2The facts reflect that the acquisition had been made under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1959 Act’) by issuance of notification under section 52(2) on 24.3.1973. The acquisition proceedings had been questioned by Maharaja Bhawani Singh and others before the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil W.P. Nos.2275, 2962 and 2963/1974 as well as SB Civil W.P. No.260/1979. Initially, the Single Bench vide order dated 15.10.1982 allowed the writ application and quashed the acquisition proceedings, however, the writ appeal was filed against the judgment of the Single Bench. Same was allowed by a Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 21.2.1986. The validity of the acquisition proceedings was upheld. Maharaja Bhawani Singh had taken the plea that the building and area in question had not been acquired. However, the challenge was repelled. Thereafter, Maharaja Bhawani Singh had entered into agreements to sell on 17.2.1986 and 21.2.1986 with respect to Kanak Bhavan and other areas with the petitioners. Against the decision of the High Court an SLP was filed in this 3 Court which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 30.3.1993.
On the basis of the agreement, Ram Sharan Gupta, the petitioner, filed W.P. No.3931/1993 challenging the aforesaid acquisition proceedings and prayed for quashment of notification dated 24.3.1973 issued under section 52(2) of the 1959 Act. Though, the same relief was already declined to Maharaja Bhawani Singh. On 8.9.1993 while dismissing the writ petition the Single Bench held that the agreement was void, and that the area in question had vested in the State absolutely free from all encumbrances. Maharaja Bhawani Singh could not have entered into an agreement to sell in favour of petitioners after issuance of the notification under the Act. The agreement conferred no rights and it was void. It was held that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ petition. Thereafter, award was passed on 18.10.1993. Reference was sought by Maharaja Bhawani Singh for enhancement of compensation.
It is also pertinent to mention here that
civil suits filed by the
4
agreement-holders/petitioners were also dismissed in 1995, in which agreements for sale dated 17.2.1986 and 21.2.1986 were held to be void. The judgment in the second round of writ petition and third round of civil suit also attained finality.
As a matter of fact on the basis of agreement to sell the petitioners had absolutely no right to question the acquisition. Though they had filed two rounds of litigation earlier in which agreement was held to be void, it was finally concluded that the area in question had been acquired and stood vested in the State. Thereafter, in fourth round, a PIL being Civil W.P. (PIL) No.1737/2003 (Sanjay Tyagi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was filed in the High Court wherein the High Court passed judgment and order dated 27.10.2010 which had been affirmed by this Court on 3.5.2017.
In Civil W.P. No.3931 of 1993 filed by petitioner which was dismissed on 8.9.1993, the High Court passed the following order:
“I have heard Mr. Ganga Lehari Pareek at length. The main contention of Mr.Pareek is that the bungalow/ building situated 5 at Khasra No.77 of old Bhawanishanker Pura, village consisting of an area 3890 sq. meters was never intended to be acquired by the Notification and the Notification under Section 52(1) and 52(2), were wrongly issued with regard to these properties. It is also contended that the Special Officer, Town Planning Department exceeded its jurisdiction when he issued Notification with regard to the entire property/ land of khasra No.77, as he was exercising delegated powers. Mr. Lehari submitted that a delegated authority could not exercise more powers than the powers delegated to it.
In my view, this petition is wholly misconceived and the petitioners have no locus-standi to file it, challenging the acquisition proceedings. As stated earlier, land acquisition proceedings were challenged by Lt. Bhawani Singh, the owner of the properties, by filing a writ petition and his writ petition was dismissed on 21.2.1986. The Apex Court of the Country has also confirmed the judgment of the Division Bench, whereby the land acquisition proceedings were held to be valid. The petitioners now claim their interest through Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh, with regard to a part of the properties/ land bearing khasra No.77 of Old Bhawani Shakherpura, on the basis of two agreements dated 17.2.1986 and 21.2.1986. Apparently, the petitioners have purchased litigation for a second inning. In my view, the petitioners are bound by the judgment in the writ petition filed by Lt. Col Bhawani Singh, as they did not have any independent right or interest to challenge the proceedings again. Further, there is no registered sale 6 deed in their favour and they have purchased the land on the basis of agreements to sell, one of the writ petition is alleged to have been executed after dismissal of the writ petition by the Division Bench. It may be further stated that Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh had no right to alienate any building or any part of the land after commencement of land acquisition proceedings, and specifically after the issuance/ publication of Notifications under Section 52(1) of the Act in the Gazette. The Notification under section (1) of Section 52 of the U.I.T. Act, was published in the official Gazette in the year 1974, and after its publication the property/ land vested absolutely to the State Government free from all encumbrances. Sub section (4) of Section 52 of the U.I.T. Act, as it stood that at the relevant time, state as under:
“(4) When a notice under sub-section (1) is published in the Official Gazette, the land shall, on and from the date of such publication, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances.” Thus, the alleged agreements to sell, executed by Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh were hold as he was not the owner of the property in question after publication of Notification under Section 52(1) of the U.I.T. Act in the year 1974.
Judged from my angle, the petition is devoid of force. Consequently, it is dismissed summarily.” Inclusion of Khasra No.77 in question was questioned.7
In the civil suit which was filed in 1995, following judgment was passed :
“ववाददीगण दवारवा यह ववाद ववरुद्ध प्रवतिववाददी भववानदी ससस ह , ववक्रय अननुबस ध वदनवासक 17.2.86 ककी वववशिष्ट अननुप वालनवा हहे ति नु प्रस्तिनुति वकयवा गयवा हह . प्रवतिववाददी नहे अपनहे उत्तरववाद मम ववादपत कहे तिथ्ययों कको स्वदीकवार करतिहे हह ए अवभकसथिति वकयवा हह ककी अगर ववाददी शिहे ष रवावशि पचवास हज़वार रूपयहे न्यवायवालय कहे समक अदवा कर दहे तिको प्रवतिववाददी बह न वामवा तिहरदीर व तिकमदील करववानहे हहे ति नु तिह य वार हह . वदनवासक 4.8.2005 कको ववाददी नहे एक प्रवाथिर नवापत प्रस्तिनुति कर वनवहे द न वकयवा हह वक वह ववादपत कहे चरण सस ख् यवा -9 मम चवाहहे गए पचवास हज़वार कहे हज़र कहे अननुति कोष कको प्रहेस नहहीं करतिवा हह , उक्त प्रवाथिर नवापत कवा भदी प्रवतिववाददी दवारवा ककोई जववाब प्रस्तिनुति नहहीं वकयवा गयवा हह . इससहे पपूवर ववाददीगण नहे एक ससववल ररट वपटदीशिन नस ब र 3931/1993 मवाननदीय रवाजस्थिवान उच्च न्यवायवालय , जयपनुर पदीठ, जयपनुर मम ववादग्रस्ति भपूव म कहे सम्बन्ध मम ववादग्रस्ति ववक्रय अननुबस ध कहे आधवार पर प्रस्तिनुति ककी थिदी , सजसकहे वनणर य ककी फकोटकोप्रवति पतवावलदी पर हह , उक्त ररट वपटदीशिन मम मवाननदीय रवाज . उच्च न्यवायवालय दवारवा वदनवासक 8.9.93 कको आदहे शि पवाररति कर ववादग्रस्ति ववक्रय अननुबस ध कको , ववादग्रस्ति भपूव म कको रवाज्य सरकवार दवारवा सहे क् शिन 52 [1] यपू .आई.टदी. एक्ट कहे अधदीन सन 1974 मम रवाज्य सरकवार दवारवा असधग्रवहति वकयहे जवानहे कहे बवाद वकयवा जवानहे सहे प्रवतिववाददी उक्त भपूव म कवा मवासलक न हकोनहे सहे , शिनुन् य करवार वदयवा गयवा हह , मवाननदीय रवाज. उच्च न्यवायवालय कहे उक्त वनणर य अननुस वार ववादग्रस्ति भपूव म कवा असधग्रहण सन 1974 मम हदी यपू .आई.टदी. दवारवा वकयवा जवा चनुक वा थिवा. ववादग्रस्ति अननुबस ध ककी वदनवासक 17.2.86 कको प्रवतिववाददी ववादग्रस्ति भपूव म 8 कवा मवासलक नहहीं थिवा और मवाननदीय रवाज . उच्च न्यवायवालय कहे उक्त वनणर य अननुस वार ववादग्रस्ति अननुबस द शिनुन् य हह . जब ववादग्रस्ति अननुबस द हदी शिनुन् य हह तिको उसककी वववनवदर ष्ट पवालनवा नहहीं करववाई जवा सकतिदी और प्रवाथिर नवापत ववाददीगण वदनवासक 16.9.94 वदनवासक 4.8.2005 और ववाद ववाददीगण ख़वाररज वकयहे जवानहे यकोग्य हह .
इस प्रकवार मवाननदीय रवाज . उच्च न्यवायवालय कहे उक्त वनणर य अननुस वार ववक्रय अननुबस द वदनवासक 17.2.86 शिनुन् य हकोनहे सहे उसककी वववनवदर ष्ट पवालनवा नहहीं करववाई जवा सकतिदी और प्रवाथिर नवापत ववाददीगण वदनवासक 16.9.94, वदनवासक 4.8.2005 और ववाद ववाददीगण ख़वाररज वकयहे जवानहे यकोग्य हकोनहे सहे ख़वाररज वकयवा जवातिवा हह . खचवार पककवारन अपनवा-अपनवा वहन करम गहे ."
In the public interest litigation, the High Court held that possession of petitioner was that of a trespasser and it was not necessary in land acquisition proceedings under the UIT Act to take possession. Area in question stood absolutely vested in the State after acquisition. A reference was also sought by Maharaja Bhawani Singh for enhancement of compensation. As the possession of the petitioner was not found to be rightful, the High Court directed removal of encroachment. Against the decision of the High Court matter travelled to this Court in SLP [C] Nos.34143/2010, 34148/2010 and 36314/2014. On 9 3.5.2017 the following order was passed by this Court:
“Heard.
It is clear that land in question had been acquired and area had been specifically mentioned in the Notification which was issued. We find that when land had been acquired and Award had been passed, no case for interference is made out in the Order passed by the High Court. The special leave petitions are dismissed. We find no legal infirmity in the order of the High Court.
Let steps be taken to clear the entire area as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from today and the compliance report be filed in this Court. There shall not be any entertainment of any further litigation at the instance of any party or third person by the High Court or by any other court with regard to acquired property.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” Thereafter, W.P. Nos.380 & 383/2017 have been filed in this Court, virtually questioning the order passed by this Court and also the orders passed by the High Court which have attained finality and operates as res judicata. The clear mandate issued by this Court that no further petition shall be entertained at the instance of any party or third person was binding upon the petitioners also. Thus, 10 it was not appropriate for them to file writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the order passed by this Court by a circuitous method whereas all the questions stood concluded by an elaborate judgment of the High Court which had been passed in the PIL and other matters in the second, third and fourth rounds of litigation, the agreements in favour of petitioners were held to be void. Maharaja Bhawani Singh had lost in the first round of litigation. It was also held that he had no right to execute agreement to sell. Thus, by repeatedly filing litigations, the petitioners had shown utter disrespect to the process of law. The matters have been decided earlier on four occasions on merits.
Earlier, the matter of acquisition had been decided finally by this Court while dismissing SLP in the year 1993 and again on 3.5.2017. It was also held that the Award had been passed, and area in question had been acquired. Moreover, it was held that it was open to Maharaja Bhawani Singh to claim compensation in reference which was sought under 11 Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Even otherwise, agreement holders on the basis of agreements which were held to be void thrice had no right, title or interest to file fresh writ petition.
Be that as it may, the kind of petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution which have been filed after the order passed by this Court tantamount to disobedience of the order passed by this Court.
Consequently, we deem it proper to draw contempt proceedings against the petitioners for resorting to filing frivolous petitions in this Court, that too in violation of the orders passed by this Court by misquoting the facts. The filing of such petitions tantamount to interfere with the administration of justice. The petitions are not only misconceived venture but repeatedly raising an issue which already stood concluded. The protection under section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was not at all available in the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of previous orders and agreements being void.12
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the petitions which have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, with a cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs only) in each case.
In WP No.383/2017, it be deposited with the Welfare fund of 'Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association' and in WP No. 380/2017 to be deposited with the 'SCBA Advocates Welfare Fund', within a period of four weeks from today.
Let contempt proceedings be separately registered against petitioners. Let notice be issued to them.
List on 1.9.2017.
.................J. [ARUN MISHRA] .................J. [AMITAVA ROY] NEW DELHI;
JULY 31, 2017.13
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.10 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).380/2017
MRIDULA GUPTA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)
(FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 42279/2017 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 42280/2017) WITH W.P.(C) No. 383/2017 (X) (FOR EX-PARTE STAY ON IA 42653/2017 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 42654/2017) Date : 31-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. W.P(C) No.380/2017 Mr. Atul Yeshwant Chitale, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Tanvi Kakar, Adv.
Ms. Shivangi Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR W.P.(C)No.383/2017 Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Akshat Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Amritanshu, Adv.
Mr. Hassan Zubair Waris, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Sinha, Adv.
For respondents Mr. P. S. Narasimha, ASG.
Mr. Ajay Choudhary, Adv Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, For AOR 14 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The writ petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order, with a cost of of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs only) in each case. In WP. No.383/2017, it be deposited with the Welfare fund of 'Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association' and in WP No. 380/2017 to be deposited with the 'SCBA Advocates Welfare Fund', within a period of four weeks from today.
Let contempt proceedings be separately registered against petitioners. Let notice be issued to them.
List on 1.9.2017.
(B.PARVATHI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(signed order is placed on the file)