MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR versus SHANKARLAL

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 61 · Decided: 03-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

7 
, 
r 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR 
A 
v. 
SHANKARLAL 
\ 
FEBRUARY 3, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
! 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ filed by Respondent 
seeking direction to Municipal Corporation to regularise a plot of land-
Allowed by High Court-Challenge to-Held: Order of High Court not c 
sustainable since while passing the direction, the Court did not consider various 
pleas raised by the Corporation-Municipalities-Regularization of land. 
Clarificatory order-Scope and extent of-Direction of High Court to 
Corporation to regularise a plot of land-Respondent aggrieved by certain 
steps taken by Corporation filed application seeking clarification-High Court D 
while dealing with the application virtually substituted its earlier order by a 
fresh one-Held: Not permissible, as directions which were not given in earlier 
order cannot be incorporated in the subsequent order-Municipalities-
Regularization of land. 
In 1984, Respondent filed an application for regularization of a plot of E 
land before the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA). While the application 
was pending consideration, JOA passed a resolution in 1989 to regularize lands 
of similarly situated persons like the Respondent. Subsequently, the land in 
dispute stood transferred to the Appellant-Corporation. Respondent filed an 
application for regularization before the Appellant in 1996. He filed a writ F 
petition in 1999 before High Court for direction to Appellant to regularize 
the land on basis of the 1989 JOA resolution. In response, Appellant raised 
various pleas viz. that it was not bound by any decision taken by its predecessor 
body i.e. JDA and that the writ petition was not maintainable on grounds of 
delay and laches. But the High Court allowed the writ petition without 
considering t~e said pleas of the Aprellant, and held that the Corporation G 
was bound to regularize the Respondent's land on the pattern of the 1989 
JDA resolution. Aggrieved by certain steps taken by the Appellant-
., 
Corporation, Respondent filed an application before High Court seeking 
"clarification in the order". High Court disposed of the application holding 
61 
H 
~ 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A that the action taken by the Appellant was in flagrant disregard and violation 
of the High Court's earlier order. Both the orders of High Court are under 
challenge in the present appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: I. The orders of the High Court both in the writ petition and 
the so called clarificatory order are clearly indefensible. As a matter of fact, 
the High Court did not consider various pleas taken by the Appellant-
Corporation regarding delayed approach and the effect of any decision taken 
' 
by the predecessor budy on it. It was not explained before the High Court as 
to why the Respondent filed a11 application before the Appellant-Corporation 
"
c in 1996 if he was really str.king his claim on the basis of an application made 
earlier. Maximum that could have been done by the High Court in such a 
situation was to direct the Appellant-Corporation to deal with the request 
made in 1996, in accordance with law. The direction given for regularization 
is clearly unsustainable. The High Court while dealing with application for 
D clarification virtually substituted his earlier judgment by a fresh one. 
Directions which were not given in the earlier order were incorporated in the 
subsequent order which was also impermissible. Direction could not have been 
given by the High Court to regularize on the basis of the earlier decision of 
• 
JDA without deciding the binding effect, if any of the said decision of the 
E 
Appellant-Corporation. (65-G, H; 66-A-B] 
2.1. Once the orders passed by the High Court are held to be 
indefensible, any consequent action to give effect to the order without prejudice 
to the stand taken in the appeals before this Court can by no stretch of 
imagination be said to have conferred any right on the Respondent, much 
less effecting the merits of the appeal. (66-E] 
.. 
F 
2.2. It is however directed that the application dated 27.9.1996 filed by 
the Responde'!t shall be dealt with by the Appellant-Corporation in 
accordance with law. The amount which is stated to have been deposited shall 
be adjusted against the amount, if any, fixed by the Appellant-Corporation, 
G if it chooses to regularize the land in question. However, if it decides not to 
regula

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