Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The next ground for assailing the impugned detention order was that irrelevant grounds had been taken into consideration. It was submitted that the order of detention is based on vague, extraneous, non-existent and irrelevant grounds and passed without application of mind to the true facts and circumstances. It was contended that loss to the Government, under-valuation of land and construction on margin land were irrelevant considerations for making the impugned order as the same had no nexus with the maintenance of public order and that the grounds for making the detention order are completely interwoven and cannot be separated and upheld. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jatindra Nath v. State of W.B., for the proposition that even if one ground, out of two or more is found to vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, the order of detention falls.

10. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Gori submitted that the activities of the petitioner fall within the definition of property grabber as envisaged under Section 2(h) of the Act. It was vehemently contended that the petitioner had made unauthorized construction over margin land for open space as well as the common plot and has unauthorisedly disposed of the land forming part of the common plot and road, and as such, could be said to be a property grabber in terms of Section 2(h) of the Act.

13. Paragraph No. 18 of the detention order refers to the investigation report dated 29th September 2005, submitted by the Resident Deputy Collector, Patan, after carrying out detailed investigation. It is stated that, as per the said report, the petitioner along with his brother had prepared an assembled plan and had constructed building for commercial purpose on lands shown as common plot and margin land in the original N.A. permission layout plan; had shown lesser consideration in the sale deeds and thus, cheated the purchasers. That, economic loss has been caused to the State Government and as such, exemplary penal action was required to be taken against the petitioner.

24. In the present case, there is nothing in the impugned order of detention to show that the petitioner is engaged in or is preparing to engage in any activities, which affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. The alleged breaches of N.A. permission are in relation to lands owned by the petitioner and none of the alleged breaches can be said to have any rational nexus with the maintenance of public order. The said activities have no causal or proximate connection with the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority. From the activities stated in the order of detention it is apparent that most of the said activities pertain to the under-valuation of land in the sale deeds, construction on the margin land, loss to the State Government which are not germane to the object for which the order of detention can legally be made, namely the maintenance of public order. In the circumstances, the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is vitiated on the grounds of non-application of mind and non-consideration of relevant facts, vitiating the exercise of jurisdiction to detain the petitioner. On this ground also the order of detention stands vitiated.