LexMOLUGU MAHIPAL REDDY AND ORS. versus M PRADEEP KUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 611 MOLUGU MAHI PAL REDDY AND ORS. v. M PRADEEP KUMAR AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.8749-8750 of2015) OCTOBER 16, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Writ petition filed in public interest challenging the action of competent authorities in registering the land - Allowed by High Court - Challenged C by appellants on the ground that the said parcel of land was not government land and therefore High Court erred in interfering in exercise of its public interest jurisdiction to protect the so called public interest - Plea of appellants that D they were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition filed by public interest litigant who had been set up by the rival claimants to the land only to blackmail or pressurize them - Held: Several questions arose for determination which ought to have been but were not been examined by High Court - E Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh considertion. Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD:1. Several questions which arose for F determination before this Court have not been examined by the High Court. For instance the question, whether . the writ petitioh was bona fide and in publiC interest, was not examined by the High Court. The averments made in the writ petition showed that the petitioner was himself G interested in buying some land when he discovered the unauthorised occupation of government lands by third parties. This aspect needed to be examined and verified. Secondly, the question whether land .underlying Survey . ' 611 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A Nos.215 and 222 was Government land or privately owned land, was a matter on which any finding by the High Court was bound to adversely affect and prejudice the appellants. The appellants were not, however, arrayed as parties either in PIL No.130 of 2014 or in the B earlier rounds of litigation, even whfm they claimed title to the property in question on thEi basis of properly registered instruments of sale in their favour. The writ petitioner appears to have withheld deliberately or otherwise that information from the Court and secured C an order from the High Court behind the back of the appellants. Thirdly, the question whether a notification, issued by the Government under Section 48 of the Act as early as in the year 1972, could be~ assailed by a public 0 activist years after the same was issued, was also required to be considered by the High Court. In regard to the transfer of possession, the question whether appellants/owners of the land were dispossessed or their predecessors had been dispossessed, as E suggested by tire Government, or whether the possession was only on papers which was returned by the Government in terms of proceedings of the Collector dated 241h July, 2004 also reqlllired scrutiny and determination by the High Court. 1Nhether or not there F was ariy award made or any payment made to the earlier land-owners and whether or not the notification under Section 17 was val idly issued and whether the same was preceded by a notice under Section 9 of the Act, are also matters that need to be examined by the High Court. So G also the'question, whether Section 11-A of the Act has any application to cases where iand is vested in the Government under Section 17(1) e>f the Act, needs to be addressed. Several issues were raised that needed to be suitably and articulately formulated and addressed H by the High Court before it can issue any direction on MOLUGU MAHI PAL REDDY AND v. M PRADEEP KUMAR 613 the subject. Inasmuch as the Hig_h Court acted in A somewhat hasty manner, it has committed a mistake that not only resulted in miscarriage ofjustice but rendered the order unsustainabie. [Paras 12, 13] [623-E-H; 624-A- H] Mis. Jethumu/I Bhojraj v. State of Bihar and others 1972 (3) SCR 193 : (1972) 1 sec 714; Delhi Airtech Services Private Ltd. and Another v. State ofUttarPradesh andAnother2012 (12) SCR 191 B : (2011) 9 SCC 354; V. Chandrasekaran andAnr. C v. Administrative Officer and Ors.2012 (10) SCR 603: (2012) 12 sec 133 - referred to. Case Law Reference 1972 (3) SCR 193 referred to. Para 10 2012 (12) SCR 191 referred to. Para 10 2012 (10) SCR 603 referred to. Para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8749-8750 of 2015. D E Form the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2014 of the High Court of Judi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.