LexM/S. ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus G. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011) 11 S.C.R. 701 M/S. ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. G. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7588 of 2005 SEPTEMBER 29, 2011. · [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: A B c Article 226 read with Article 136 - Limitation for filing of writ petition - Held: Though no period of limitation has been provided for filing a petition under Article 226, but one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint is that the High Court may not enquire into a belated or stale claim and may deny D relief to the petitioner if he is found guilty of /aches - Further, during the intervening period, rights of third parties may have crystallized - Interference by Supreme Court in such matters would be warranted only if it is found that the exercise of discretion by High Court was totally arbitrary or was based on E irrelevant consideration - In the instant case, the High Court in earlier writ petitions had nullified the acquisition on the ground of fraud and misuse of the provisions of the Act as instead of using the acquired land for the public purpose specified in the notifications u/ss 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, it was transferred to private persons - When the writ F petitioner-respondent came to know that his land has a/so been transferred to a private entity, he made a grievance and finally approached the High Court - During the intervening period, he pursued his claim for higher compensation - Therefore, it cannot be said that he was sleeping over his right G and was guilty of /aches - Therefore, the discretion exercised by the High Court to entertain and decide the writ petition filed by the respondent on merits and allowing his claim cannot 701 H 9'02 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 11 S.C.R. A be said to be vitiated by any patent legal infirmity - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6. LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: ss. 4 and 6 - Land acquired for public purpose - B Diversified to private persons and entities - Land owners approaching High Court challenging the acquisition proceedings and for restoring the land to them - Held: The power of eminent domain to compulsorily acquire the land of private persons cannot be over-stretched to legitimize a C patently illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken for depriving the land owners of their constitutional right to property with a view to favour private persons - Therefore, the Corporation did not have the jurisdiction to transfer the land acquired for a public purpose to the companies and thereby D allow them to bypass the provisions of Part VII of the Act - The diversification of the purpose for which the land was acquired u/s 4(1) read withs. 6, clearly amounted to fraud on the power of eminent domain - High Court, therefore, quashed the notifications u/ss 4(1) and 6 in their entirety and E that judgment has become final - In the instant case, the land owner has succeeded in convincing the Division Bench of the High Court that the action taken by the Corporation to transfer his land to the private entity was wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and there is no valid ground to interfere with the F impugned judgment - Administrative Law - Power of eminent domain. The State Government, at the instance of the Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation (Corporation), issued notification dated 29.12.1981 uls G 4(1) and declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquiring the land admeasuring 37 acres 4 guntas of land comprised in various survey numbers including Survey No.122, for public purpose, namely, construction of Golf-cum-Hotel Resort near Bangalore Airport, H Bangalore to be raised by the Corporation. The Special ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 703 JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated A 7.4.1986. However1 in the meeting of senior officers of the Bangalore Development Authority and the Corporation held on 13.1.1987, the Managing Director of the Corporation gave out that the Corporation did not have necessary finances for deposit of cost of the acquisition B and in furtherance of the decision taken in that meeting, agreements were executed by the Corporation conveying the land to private entities. This was challenged by the land owners, namely, Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha, Annaiah and Smt. H.N. Lakshmamma, before the High c Court in writ petitions which were dismissed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.