LexMANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. versus UGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2010) 7 S.C.R. 346 MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. v. UGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 973 of 2007) JUNE 3, 2010 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Urban Development: c U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973- s. 41 - Control by State Government - State Government- revisional Authority under the Statute, if could take upon itself the task of lower statutory authority - Held: Higher authority in hierarchy or appellate or revisional authority cannot 0 exercise the power of statutory authority nor can direct statutory authority to act in a particular manner - Such order would be unenforceable - Aggrieved person can prefer appeal before appellate authority and against the said order he may file revision application before State Government - E However, State Government cannot pass order without giving opportunity of hearing to the person adversely affected - On facts, State Government directly entertained application for allotment of land without hearing the other party - Chief Minister directed allotment of land in favour of one of the applicants - Thus, order passed by State Government stood F vitiated since it took the task of the Development Authority upon itself - It was a case of colourable exercise of power - Chief Minister had no competence to deal with the subject - More so, land was allotted contrary to the Land Policy - Land Acquisition Act, 1894. G Interim order- Order passed or action taken by statutory authority in contravention of interim order - Enforceability of - Held: Is a nullity - On facts, interim order passed by High Cowt was in force and it restrained the Avthorities to make H 346 MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. v. UGRASEN (D) BY 34 7 LRS. & ORS. allotment of land in dispute in favour of anyone elso - State A Government as well as the Development Authority aware of the factum of subsistence of interim order - Thus, allotment of land in favour of other applicant by State Government, not enforceable and remains inexecutable. Pleadings -. Grant of relief not specifically prayed by parties - Held: Cannot be granted - Issuance of direction by High Court to make allotment of land in favour of petitioner, when relief sought was limited only to quash the allotment of land made in favour of other party, not permissible in law. B c Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 2261227 - Extra- ordinary jurisdiction under - Held: When person approaches Court of Equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 2261227, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and D clean objective - On facts, litigant did not approach the court with disclosure of true facts, thus his case stands vitiated - Equity. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant-M and E respondent-U owned certain lands. The said lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was passed. M and U filed applications to claim the benefit of Land Policy. M was allotted land as per the directions of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. U filed writ petition challenging the F allotment order. Thereafter, the land allotted to M was changed. M filed a writ petition and the High Court restrained the authorities from making allotment to anyone else from the land allotted to M. On direction by the State Government, Ghaziabad Development Authority G allotted land in favour of U, though it was covered by the interim order passed by the High Court. U refused to take the plots. GOA allotted S()me other plots to M. U then filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the allotment made in H 348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A favour of M. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the allotment of land in favour of U. Hence these appeals. The questions which arose for consideration in these 8 appeals are whether the State Government-a Revisional Authority under the Statute, could take upon itself the task of a lower statutory authority; whether the order passed or action taken by a statutory authority in contravention of the interim order of the Court is enforceable; and whether the Court could grant relief C which had not been prayed for. Allowing CA No. 974/2007 and dismissing CA No. 973/2007, the Court 0 HELD: 1. The State Government, being the revisional authority, could not entertain directly the applications by the applicants-U and M.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.