PADMA versus HIRALAL MOTILAL DESARDA & ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 179 · Decided: 09-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

PADMA 
A 
V. 
HIRALAL MOTILAL DESARDA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 9, 2002. 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
B 
Urban Development-Housing-Allotment of land by bulk sale by 
CIDCO-Petition challenging allotment-Treated as Public Interest 
Litigation-Irregularities in allotment found and allotment held to be null and C 
void by High Court-In appeal plea of want of necessary pleadings and 
denial of opportunity of defending by non-petitioners raised-Plea rejected 
and finding of High Court upheld-However, relief modified. 
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 32, 226-Public Interest litigation--
Technicalities do not deter the Court in wielding its power to do justice, D 
enforcing the law and balancing the equities. 
Government of Maharashtra acquired land for City and Industrial 
Development Corporation (CIDCO), a Government Company, the main 
objective of which was to develop land for residential, commercial and 
allied industrial activities on "no profit no loss" basis. CIDCO got approval E 
of development plan by the Government. A patch of land had been shown 
in the approved plan meant for future expansion. After development of 
the approved land, CIDCO decided to dispose of the developable land by 
butk·sale and consequently the land was allotted to respondent Nos. 5,6,9 
and 15. 
Respondent No. I filed writ petition before High Court chailenging 
the bulk sale by CIDCO. High Court treated the petition as public interest 
litigation and called for the records of CIDCO and framed issues, beyond 
the pleadings in the writ petition. High Court found that respondent No.12 
F 
was Director of CIDCO at the relevant time and respondent Nos. 5, 6 and G 
15 were alteregos of respondent No.12, and they were created during same 
period; that allotments were made without approval of Board of Directors 
of CIDCO and without assigning any reason for allotment; that allotment 
made to respondent No.5 was without affording other rivals an opportunity 
of participating in the bid and when the revised development plan was 
179 
H 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A pending with the Government for approval; that the lands were allotted 
for less than reserve price for no reason and without specific approval by 
the Board or competent authority; that the letters of allotment did not 
set out the nature of land user. Court held that the action of CIDCO in 
the matter of disposal of land by bulk sale was against public interest and 
B allotment of land was null and void, as the draft development plan had 
not been approved by the State G~vernment as required under Section 
I IS of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act; that the 
proclamations issued for disposal of land were illegal; that individual 
allotments made in favour of respondent Nos. 5,8,9,10 and 15 were also 
illegal and the administration was directed to take immediate possession 
C of the respective lots including the structure and buildings standing 
thereon. Respondent No. 6 , allotment in whose favour was subsequently 
cancelled by CIDCO, filed writ petition which was dismissed by High 
Court. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that High Court 
D committed error in entertaining individual grievance of respondent No.I, 
who himself happened to be a builder on purchase of land, as a Public 
Interest Litigation; that the legality of allotment of land could not have 
been examined by High court in the absence of any pleadings in that 
respect; and that in respect of several plots of land constructions having 
E already been made and the appropriate authority of the Government 
having approved the development as well as proposal of bulk disposal of 
plots it is fully inequitable to cancel the allotments. 
Respondent No. I contended that finding of High Court tantamount 
to finding of fraud committed by CIDCO in the matter of allotment of 
F land and therefore fraud vitiates every action of the authority, and hence 
it wasjust and proper for the High court to set aside the allotment made. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The appellants cannot raise any grievance on the ground 
G of want of necessary pleadings and denial of necessary opportunity of 
defending themselves at the hearing in High Court. I 192-F; 193-BJ 
1.2. The High Court had, by having framed the issues, put all the 
parties before it on notice that it proposed to enter into issues wider than 
what may have been raised in the writ petition filed before it. The non-
H 

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