STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus SWAIKA PROPERTIES & ANR.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 08-04-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
598 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
v. 
SWAIKA PROPERTIES & ANR. 
April 8, 1985 
[A.P. SBN AND V. BALl\KRlSHNA ERA.DI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950, Article 226-
High Court to determine extent of its territorial jurisdiction before ntaking 
interlocutory orders-Ad interim ex parte orders-Passing of-Der'lrecated 'cause 
of action'-Service of notice whether an integral part of 'cause of action'-
Acquisilion of land-By State Government of Raja1than-Notice ser~·ed on owner 
at Calcutta-Calcutta High Court-Whether can exercise writ jurisdiction. 
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act 1959, Section 59(2) 
Land in Jaipur -Acquisition for p:4b/ic purpose-Notice issuel- to owner at 
Cafcutta -Whether writ m1hrtai11a?/e in Calcutta High Court. 
Words & Phrases : 
) 
E 
'Cause of action' -,\leaning (1/-Civil Proced11re Codt! 1908, Section 20 
F 
G 
B 
at1d Constitution of India 1950, Article 226. 
The Special Officer, Town Planning Department, Jaipur issued a notice 
under s. 52 (2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 at the instance 
of the Improvement Trust to the respondent-company which owned ellteosive 
' 
land on the outskirts of Jaipur City stating that it. was proposed by the State Y'
Government to acquire the said land under s. 52 (I) for a public purpose, the 
implementation of a developing scheme at public expense viz. the Civil Lines 
Extension Scheme,· and the said notice \vas duly served on the respondents at 
their registered office at 18B, Brabourne Road, Calcutta. In comp1iancc there-
with, the respondents appeared before the Special Officer and while denying 
the existence of a public purpose for acquisition of the said land under s. 52 (I) 
of the Act, asserted that they needi.:d the land to start new business in the 
State of Rajasthan viz. for establishment of a branch office, construction of 
residential houses for their Director and Senior Executives etc. The Special · 
Officer 00 being satisfied from the material on record that the alleged need of 
the respondents was not bona fide and that the land was required by the lmpro· 
vement Trust for a public purpose viz. the Civil Lines Extension Scheme, rccom· 
RAiASTHAN v. SWAIKA PROPBRTiES 
·599 
mended that the entire land be acquired under s. 52 (I) of the Act. 
Having failed in their effort to get the land released from acqusition. the 
respondents made an application to the State Government under s. 20 of the 
Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 for exemption of the land from 
the Purview of that Act aileging that the land was needed for constructing a 
three-star hotel, but it appears that they were not serious in undertaking any 
A 
such venture. While the matter was under the consideration of the State 
B 
Government, the Improvement Trust represented that the notified land in 
entirety was needed for the afores_aid ·development scheme and accordingly 
the State Goveroment issued the impugned notification. 
The respondent-company approached the Calcutta High Court by a writ 
·petitiori. A Single Judge entertaini::d the petition under Art. 226, issued a 
rule nisi to the appe11ants to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not 
be issued, and also passed an ex parte ad·interim prohibitory order restraining 
them fri.>1n taking a1y steps to require the respondents to surrender or deliver 
possession of the lands acquired. 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD : l. l. Normally, the High Court should not, as a rule, in pro· 
ceedings under Art. 226 of the constitution grant any ad· ir,_teritn prohibitory 
order staying the implementation of any development scheme framed by the 
Government or by the local authorities, save under very exceptional circum-
stances and particularly without notice to the Government or ·such authority, 
The Court deprecated !he tendency on the part of the High Court in spite of a 
long line of decisions of this Court starting fro1n Si/iguri Mu"nicipa/ity v. 
Amalendu Das, [1984] 2 SCC 436 to grant interlocutory orders for the mere 
asking. [60IB·El 
1. 2 Although the powers of the High Courts under Art. 226 are far and 
wide and the Judges must ever be vigilant to protect the citizen aginst arbitrary 
Executive action, nevertheless, the Judges have a constructive role to ·play and 
therefore there is always the need to use such extensive powers with due 
circumspection. There has to be in the larger public interest an element of 
·self-ordained restraint. The effect of the impugned ad·interim prohibitory order 
m

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