LexM/S MUTHA ASSOCIATES AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 10 S.C.R. 1051 MIS MUTHA ASSOCIATES AND ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2853 of 2002 etc.) JULY 4, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: A B s.6 rlw. s.126(2) of Maharashtra Regional and Town c Planning Act, 1966 - Acquisition of land - By Municipal authorities - For extention of 'Bamboo Trade and Flea·Market' by Agricultural Produce Market Committee - Under development plan for the city - Acquisition proceedings challenged - High Court upheld the proceedings - Held: The D High Court rightly upheld the acquisition proceedings on the grounds of delayllaches as well as on merits - There was no dichotomy between the purpose notified and the purpose for which the reservation was made. s.48 - Withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings - By the Minister of Revenue - Withdrawal challenged - High Court set aside the withdrawal order on the grounds that the same was not notified in official Gazette, it was violative of principles of natural justice and the reasons for withdrawal were not sustainable - Held: Withdrawal order was rightly set aside by the High Court - Withdrawal order was arbitrary, lacked objectivity, it was passed by ignoring material on record and was violative of principles of natural justice. E F Administrative Law - Administrative decision - Malafide G - A/legation of - Standard of proof - Held: Merely because action by public authority is found untenable, it cannot be called malafide - An action may continue to be bonafide and in good faith, even if the public authority has committed 1051 H 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A mistakes or irregularities or breached principles of natural justice - Suspicion however strong, cannot be proof of charge of malafide - In the facts of the case, malafide not proved against the public authority. 8 Delayllaches - Challenge to acquisition proceedings u/ Art. 226 of the Constitution - Held: The Court can decline to invoke its power of judicial review under Art.226 to interfere with acquisition proceedings, if the challenge to such proceedings is belated and the delay is unexplained - C Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.226. Pune Municipal Corporation i.e. the planning authority under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTP Act) published the draft of its revised Development Plan for the city of Pune in the official D Gazette. The area in question was reserved for the extention of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) market yard. The plan was sanctioned by the State wherein the land in question was shown as reserved for APMC for the purpose of 'Bamboo Trade and E Flea Market' and authorised APMC for acquisition of the land in question for the development. Notification was issued in November 1987 u/s. 126(2) of MRTP Act r/w. s.6 of Land Acquisition Act. No objections were filed by the owners of the land or the F builders-appellant. However, they filed application before Chief Minister of the State praying for deletion of the land under acquisition from reservation. In the meantime award was passed in the acquisition proceedings. The request made to the Chief Minister was rejected. After the G notice for possession of the land was issued, the land owners filed civil suit against the award. During pendency of the proceedings, the owners as well the builder- appellant filed writ petition No.670 of 1996, which was entertained on the condition that they would withdraw the H suit. M/S MUTHA ASSOCIATES AND ORS. v. STATE OF 1-0$3 MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. During pendency of the writ petition, the State by A invoking its powers u/s.48 of the Land Acquisition Act, directed withdrawal of proceedings qua the land in question. Aggrieved thereby, APMC filed writ petition No. 3620/1998. B High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the land owners and buiider-appellants, upholding the acquisition proceedings. The writ petition filed by APMC was allowed holding that the withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings was not valid because the withdrawal notification was not published in the official C Gazette; because the order was passed without hearing the beneficiary of the acquisition i.e. APMC; and because the reasons given by the Minister of Revenue for withdrawal were unsustainable. The Court also held that the withdrawal order passed by the Minister was malafide. Hence the present appeals were filed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.