CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION versus DOSU AARDESHIR BHIWANDIWALA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 14-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S. C.R. 28 
A 
CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 
7 
v. 
DOSU AARDESHIR BHIWANDIWALA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6652 of 2008) 
B 
NOVEMBER 14, 2008 
[S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
+ ' 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Dispensation of 
c 
writ petition - Dispute· pertaining to huge tract of land -
Respondent No. 1, as trustee of the Bhiwandiwala Trust, laid· 
claim to said land after prolonged delay of 35 years - He 
filed writ petition contending that Appellant, an instrumentality 
of the State, had been illegally and unauthorizedly using the 
said land without acquiring the same or without paying 
D 
compensation therefor.- High Court, in absence of a proper 
y 
affidavit from the State Government and without coming to 
any finding about entitlement of Respondent No. 1, directed 
acquisition of the land by considering the oral submission of 
the State's counsel as a concession recognising the title I 
E ownership of the. land in question in favour of Respondent 
No. 1 - Held: Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh 
consideration since in its earlier verdict the High Court did 
not keep in view the parameters of exercising its writ 
jurisdiction under Art. ·226 of the Constitution - Conduct of 
F 
State Government in not filing proper affidavit and in 
remaining a silent spectator without effectively participating 
in proceedings before the Coult, deprecated. 
Dispute arose pertaining to a huge tract of land. 
G 
Respondent No.1; as a trustee of the Bhiwandiwala Trust, 
laid claim to the said land after prolonged delay of 35 
years. He filed writ petition before the High Court 
contending that Appellant, an instrumentality of the State, 
had been illegally and unauthorizedly using the said land 
H 
28 
CITY AND INDUS. DEVE. CORPN. v. DOSU 
29 
AARDESHIR BHIWANDIWALA & ORS. 
without acquiring the same or without paying any A 
compensation therefor. 
The High Court, in absence of a proper affidavit from 
the State Government and without coming to any finding 
about the entitlement of Respondent No.1, directed 8 
acquisition of the land by considering the oral 
submission of the State's counsel as a concession 
recognising the title I ownership of the land in question 
in favour of Respondent No.1. Review petition against the 
order was dismissed. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals with certain observations about 
the conduct of the State Government, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court mostly relied upon the 
oral statement .made through the A.G.P. and also some 0 
vague averments made by the appellant in its reply 
affidavit to the effect that.the land in question is a private 
land and accordingly disposed of t_he Writ Petition 
directing the acquisition of the land. There is no whisper 
in the impugned order of the High Court that the 
Bhiwandiwala Trust continued to be the true and absolute E 
owner of the land possessing valid and subsisting title 
as on the date of the filing of the writ petition. Nor there 
is any finding by the High Court as regards the nature of 
the land which is one of the most important factor that 
may have a vital bearing on the issue as to the entitlement F 
of the respondent to get any relief in the writ petition. 
There is also no finding that Respondent No.1 who filed 
the writ petition as an individual is the trustee of the said 
trust and thus entitled to prosecute the litigation on behalf 
of the trust. The High Court did not consider as to what G 
is the effect of filing of the Writ Petition by someone 
claiming to be a trustee without impleading the trust as 
the petitioner. The High Court ignored the statement 
made by the respondent in his Writ Petition about his 
representation to Tehsildar requiring to record his name H 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 16 S.C.R 
A 
as an "heir". The High Court never considered the effect 
-:'"" 
· of such a statement made by the writ petitioner in the writ 
petition itself. The High Court also did not consider 
whether the reliefs claimed could at all be granted in a 
public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
B [Para 13] [37-H; 38-A-G] 
1.2. The High Court relied upon the oral statement 
purported to have been made by the officers present in 
the court through the A.G.P. and considered the same to 
c 
be concession as regards the title/ownership of the land 
in question. The appellant in its reply affidavit merely 
referred to a letter received by it from the Gov

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.