LexOSWAL FATS AND OILS LIMITED versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMINISIRATION), BAREILLY DIVISION, BAREILLY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 927
OSWAL FATS AND OILS LIMITED
v.
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMINISIRATION),
BAREILLY DIVISION, BAREILLY AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 7962 of 2002)
APRIL 01, 2010
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950:
s. 154 - Restriction on transfer by bhumidhar - Purchase .
A
B
c
of 40.45 acres land in certain villages through different sale
deeds by a Company -: Order of Collector and Additional
Commissioner that Company entitled to retain only 12.50
acres - Purchase of the remaining land measuring 27. 95 D
acres in violation of ss. 1541167 and would vest in State
Government - Upheld by High Court - Company and State
Government entered into lease agreement whereby Company
took 27.95 acres land on lease from Government by
conceding that it had purchased excess land in violation of E
s. 154(1) and the same vested in State Government -
Company withheld the lease agreement from Additional
Commissioner, High Court and this Court - No prayer made
to lead evidence to prove that purchase not in violation of s.
154(1) - No grievance that order of Collector was violative of
natural justice - Collector was right in relying upon the written
F
statement filed on behalf of Company admitting violation of
s. 154 - By execution of lease agreement, object and purpose
of the Act and order passed by Collector, stood.frustrated -
Thus, State Government directed not to renew lease of the
Company after 30 years and deal with excess land as per the G
provisions of the Act.
s. 154(1) - Word 'person' appearing in s. 154(1) -
Construction of - Held: It cannot be construed in a manner
I
927
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 5 S.C.R.
A
which would defeat the object and the purpose of legislation
- Word 'person' includes any company or association or body
of individuals, whether incorporated or not - Co-operative
society is also included by virtue of explanation to s. 154(1)
- Words and phrases.
B
Interpretation of statutes: Use of word 'include' in
interpretation clause - Held: Is used to enlarge the meaning
of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statue -
When it is used, those words or phrases must be construed
as comprehending, not only such things, as they signify
C
according to their natural import, but also those things which
the interpretation clause declares that they shall include -
Words and phrases.
Practice and procedure: Concealment of material facts
D - Effect of - Held: Such person has no right to be heard on
the merits of his grievance - Court not only has the right but
a duty to deny relief to such person.
Costs: Imposition of - Aggrieved party not approaching
E
quasi judicial and judicial forums including this Court with
clean hands and obtaining interim orders - Issuance of
direction to pay Rs.2 lacs as costs .
. The appeJICfnt-company proposed to set up a paper
project It authorized Kamal Oswal (Director), T.R. Sharma
F
{General Manager) and Jai Prakash Kaushal (Authorised
Signatory) of the company to negotiate and finalise the
purchase of land. An application was filed on behalf of
the appellant for grant of permission uls. 154(2) of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for
G purchase of land in excess of 12.5 acres. However,
without waiting for the permission, the appellant
purchased 40.45 acres land through different sale deeds.
The State Government filed suits challenging the transfer
of land in favour of the appellant. In the written statement,
H the appellant conceded that the land was purchased in
OSWAL FATS AND OILS LTD. v. ADDL. COMMNR., 929
BAREILLY DIVISION AND ORS.
contravention of the Act and prayed that it may be
A
allowed to retain 12.5 acres out of the disputed land. The
Collector and the Additional Commissioner declared that
the purchase made by the appellant in excess of 12.50
acres is against the provisions of ss. 154/167 of the Act
and it would be entitled to retain only 12.50 acres and the
B
remaining land measuring 27.95 acres would vest in the
State Government. The Single Judge of High Court
upheld the order. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. A person who does not disclose all
material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of
c
his grievance. A person who approaches the Court for
grant of r«i;!lief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn
obligation to candidly disclose allExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.