M/S. REAL ESTATE AGENCIES versus GOVT. OF GOA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 8 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 10-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 278 
M/S. REAL ESTATE AGENCIES 
v. 
GOVT. OF GOA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6383 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
C 
Art.226 - Writ petition seeking interference of High Court 
in proposed developmental work at the instance of State 
Government and Municipal Corporation on the land claimed by 
petitioner - Dismissed by High Court on the ground of 
alternative efficacious remedy, i.e. a suit for injunction - Held: 
o Writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 is fully 
empowered to interdict the State or its instrumentalities from 
embarking upon a course of action to detriment of the rights of 
the citizens, though, in the exercise of jurisdiction in the domain 
of public law such a restraint order may not be issued against 
E a private individual - In the instant case, order of High Court 
does not contain any reference to the relevant circumstances 
in which it had passed the impugned order nor does it contain 
any reasons why the petitioner was relegated to the remedy of 
initiating a civil action - The manner of reaching the decision 
F and the reasons therefor are sacrosanct to the judicial 
proceedings - Judgments/Orders. 
Art. 226 - Writ petition involving title to the subject land 
- Held: There is no universal rule or principle of law which 
debars the Writ Court from entertaining adjudications 
G involving disputed questions of fact - In the instant case, 
petitioner, claimed title to the land in question on the basis 
of the deed of Indenture, the orders of the High Court in a Civil 
Suit and the LPA as well as the proceedings of acquisition in 
respect of an area acquired out of the land in question - State 
H 
278 
REAL ESTATE AGENCIES v. GOVT. OF GOA 
279 
Government did not claim any title to the land - Claim of A 
Municipal Corporation, that the land had vested in it was not 
substantiated - High Court ought not to have disposed of the 
writ petition at the stage and in the manner it had so done and, 
instead, ought to have satisfied itself that there was actually 
a serious dispute between the parties on the question of s 
ownership or title - Only in that event, High Court would have 
been justified to relegate the petitioner to the civil court to seek 
its remedies by way of a suit - Impugned order passed by 
High Court is not tenable in law - Alternative remedy. 
Jurisprudence: 
c 
Ownership - Petitioner - developer after developing a 
residential colony, stated to have been transferred the open 
land to be developed as "open space" - Developer failed to 
develop the land as "open space" - Held: Land in question 
D 
being earmarked as "open space", the normal attributes of 
legal ownership of the land have ceased insofar as petitioner 
is concerned who is holding the land as a trustee on behalf 
of residents and other members of public - Petitioner cannot 
transfer the land nor can it use the same in any other manner 
E 
except by keeping it as an open space -
In the 
circumstances, taking into account the nature of the 
developmental works that were proposed and the fact that a 
part of the work may have been executed in the meantime, 
respondents are permitted to complete the remaining work on 
F 
the land with liberty to the petitioner to raise and establish a 
claim before the appropriate forum for such loss and 
compensation, if any, to which it may be entitled in law. 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High 
Court challenging the Government Order dated 30.6.2010 
G 
proposing to undertake the developmental works on the 
land in question admeasuring 19250 sq.m., which, 
according to the appellant was transferred to it under a 
registered deed dated 16.11.1977, after completing the 
developmental work of the residential colony developed 
H 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 
A by it, and was meant to be kept open as "vacant space". 
The petitioner claimed the right, title and interest in the 
subject land and asserted that it had exclusive right to 
develop the same. It was the case of the petitioner that 
the G.0. dated 30.6.2010 required that tenders in respect 
B of developmental work on the land would not be issued 
unless the land itself was acquired, however, without 
initiating any acquisition proceedings tender was floated 
and respondent No.4 was awarded work order and the 
works on the land were undertaken w.e.f. 2.1.2011. The 
c High Court refused the reliefs sought i

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