RITESH TEWARI & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 21-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 589 
RITESH TEWARI & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8178 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 21,2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976- s. 10(4) 
B 
- Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit -
Assessment orders of surplus land attaining finality- Transfer C 
of surplus land by original tenure holders in favour of Samiti. 
- Subsequent transfer of surplus land in favour of appellants 
. -
Meanwhile, proceedings by Authorities to effectuate 
deemed vesting of land in the State - Inter-departmental 
communications between two officers of the Department - Writ 
D 
petition by appellants for quashing the communications and .. 
direction to restrain the Authorities to interfere with their 
possession - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable -
Contents of inter-departmental communication cannot be said · 
to be subject matter of writ petition - If an order is bad in its 
E 
inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage - In view 
of ss. 5 and 10, transfer of such land by tenure holders in 
favour of Samiti, null and void - Failure of appellants in 
disclosing the date of Notification issued uls. 10(1) - Transfer 
of land in favour of Samiti for construction of residential 
houses illegal - Alleged sale deed in favour of Samiti being 
F 
a void transaction, all subsequent transactions merely to be. 
ignored - No pleadings present for proper adjudication of the· 
case - Also no special feature present warranting exercise of' 
equitable discretionary jurisdiction in favour of appellants - · G 
True facts not elicited - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) 
Repeal Act, 1999 - Plea - Equity- Constitution of India, 1950 · 
- Article 226 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 165. 
The original tenure holders transferred•a major-part'. 
589 
H' 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A of land declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling 
and Regulation) Act, 1976 with them in favour of Sahkari 
Awas Samiti on 20th April 1982, even though assessment 
orders were passed against the original tenure holders. 
The Authorities under the Act, published a Notification 
B which effectuated the deemed vesting of such land in the 
State. They directed the tenure holders to handover the 
possession. However, the Authorities did not take over 
the actual physical possession. Certain members of the 
Samiti sold the land to 'S' who further sold it to the 
c appellants by sale deed dated 15th June 2006. In the 
mean while, the stood 1976 Act repealed. Certain inter-
departmental communications took place between the 
two officers of the Government Department. They wrote 
letter dated 30th June, 2008 and letter dated 18th July, 
0 
2008. The appellants filed writ petition seeking quashing 
of the inter-departmental communications and direction 
to restrain the respondents from interfering with the 
actual and physical possession of the lands. The High 
Court dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the 
E appellants filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The appellants had not approached the 
High Court for quashing an order passed by the authority 
F 
under the 1976 Act. The letters dated 30th June, 2008 and 
18th July, 2008 are part of the record. The contents of 
such a communication between two officers of the 
departments of the Government could not be the subject 
matter of the writ petition. The appellants could not have 
approached the High Court for the relief sought by them. 
G The writ petition was certainly not maintainable. [Paras 
10 and 11] [600-8; 601-8] 
H 
1.2. The ex-parte orders of assessment of surplus 
land against the original tenure holders have been placed 
RITESH TEWARI & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 591 
on record. The said assessment orders were not A· 
challenged by them and attained finality. In view of the 
provisions of Sections 5 and 10 of the Act of 1976, 
transfer of such land by them in favour of anyone was 
not only prohibited but null and void. [Para 15] [602-e-t] 
1.3. The High Court after considering the provisions 
B 
of Sections 5 (3) and 10 (4) of the 1976 Act and taking note 
of the fact that the appellants did not disclose the date 
of notification under Section 10(1) of the Act nor annexed 
the copy of the same and further presuming that the said c. 
notice must have preceded the notice under Section 
10(3) of the Act reached the conclusion that the transfer 
which had bee

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