MAHATMA GANDHI MISSION versus CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 16-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHATMA GANDHI MISSION 
V. 
CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. 
AND ORS. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 136 and 226-State Authority 
C allotting land to Charitable Trust for setting up of a College, Charitable 
Hospital, Club and Stadium-Trust wanted to utilise part of allotted land for 
construction of staff quarters---Cancellation of allotment of the part of land by 
Authority on ground that possession was not given to the trust for the purpose 
of staff quarters-Writ Petition by trust dismissed by High Court---Correctness 
of-Held, on facts, trust failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove 
D lawful possession of land given by Authority for purpose of construction of 
staff quarters-Hence, action of Authority in cancelling allotment upheld. 
Appellant-charitable trust applied to respondent-public authority for 
allotment of land for setting up of an Engineering College, Charitable 
Hospital, Club and Stadium and for construction of staff quarters for its 
E employees. The respondent allotted land and executed agreements with 
the appellant for the lands allotted for College, Charitable Hospital and 
Club and Stadium. The appellant issued a notice to the respondent for 
undertaking actual measurement of the land as it became necessary before 
starting construction of staff quarters. The respondent cancelled the 
F allotment of the disputed land on the ground that the land was not allotted 
for the construction of staff quarters and directed the appellant to hand 
over vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed land to it. The 
appellant filed a Writ Petition before High Court challenging the action 
of the respondent. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the action of 
the respondent in cancelling the allotment of the disputed land is illegal 
and unlawful since the land was .allotted and given possession to it by the 
respondent for the purpose of construction of the staff quarters. The . 
appellant made an offer of willingness and readiness to pay the amount 
H 
246 
MAHATMA GANDHI MISSION''· CITY AND INDUS. DEVE. CORPN. LTD. 
24 7 
for the disputed land and furnishing of necessary blank guarantee to the A 
respondent at the time of hearing. 
The respondent contended that no agreement or deed has been 
executed with the appellant for allotment of land and possession given to 
it for construction of staff quarters; that the appellant illegally entered 
into possession of the disputed land and made illegal constructions; and B 
that the appellant had not made any payment for allotment of the disputed 
land. The respondent rejected the prayer of willingness and readiness of 
the appellant to purchase the disputed land. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Respondent Corporation is a statutory public authority 
and when such authority makes allotment and hands over possession of 
immovable property, such an action would be in writing. The possession 
c 
of land was never given to the ap'pellant-trust by the respondent. No 
agreement was entered into between the parties, no deed was executed, D 
no possession was given by the respondent to the appellant and the 
appellant illegally and unlawfully and in a high handed manner entered 
into the land which belonged to the respondent. Such an action by a 
charitable trust would be simply improper as also unlawful. When called 
upon to produce evidence or material to show as to on what basis the 
appellant contended that the land was allotted by the respondent and as E 
to how the appellant came into possession of the disputed land, except for 
a bald statement by the appellant that the officers of the respondent 
handed over possession to the trust, no material whatsoever had been 
produced in the court on the basis of which possession of the appellant 
could be said to be lawful. (252-E-F; 253-F-G; 254-A-B] 
F 
1.2. The respondent is right in objecting the prayer of willingness 
and readiness of the appellant to purchase the disputed land. The 
respondent cannot be asked to dispose of land otherwise than in 
accordance with statutory provisions and guidelines/norms adopted by 
such authority and at the cost of public exchequer. Keeping in view the G 
facts and circumstances, legal position and also equitable aspect of the 
matter, this is not a tit case to exercise equitable jurisdiction under Article 
13

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