THE PRINTERS (MYSORE) LTD. versus M.A. RASHEED AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 05-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
~ 
• 
,. 
A 
THE PRINTERS (MYSORE) LTD. 
v. 
M.A. RASHEED AND ORS. 
APRIL 5, 2004 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Bangalore Development Authority Act; Section 38:, 
State-Authority sold a plot of/and to a company for establishing printing 
industry-Challenge to-Allowed by High Court holding that the Authority c 
made allotment in bulk in contravention of the provisions of the Act-letters 
Patent Appeal dismissed by the High Court-On appeal, Held: In the absence 
of any restriction/condition/limitation on the authority concerned in selling/ 
transferring the property, the Authority possess power. to sell/transfer the 
plot-Allotment of the plot measuring I acre 20 gunthas cannot be termed as D 
bulk allotment-Extent of land sought to be allotted must be commensurate 
' ~ 
. wilh /he purpose of the allotment-High Court failed to apply /he principle of 
.. 
law governing allotment/sale-Hence, High Court judgment set aside . 
Public Interest litigation-Scope of-Discussed 
Respondent No.I has filed a public interest litigation against the E 
appellant-company, challenging the allotment of a plot of land in its favour 
by the Bangalore Development Authority, on the ground that the allotment 
was made without following the due procedure. Single Judge of the High 
Court allowed the petition holding that the allotment of the plot was 
! 
allotment in bulk; and that allotment was made by the authority concerned F 
'I 
in violation of the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act. 
Appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed by the 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that there was no legal impediment 
for allotment of the land by the Authority to the appellant for the purpose G 
of setting up of an industry; and that the provisions under Section 38 of 
the Act confers unrestricted power on the Authority to lease/sell/transfer 
movable/immovable property for the purpose of any development scheme. 
Respondent submitted that since the plot of land was earmarked for 
799 
H 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A housing, the same could not have been allotted for the purpose of setting 
up of an industry and that too without following the due procedure. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. No contention had been raised in the writ petition to the 
B effect that the land could not be alienated by the Authority for setting up 
of an industrial undertaking. In fact, the first respondent in the writ 
petition ¥cepted that huge industrial area had come up as a result whereof 
the potehtiality of the acquired lands had been increased by leaps and 
bounds. The thrust of the writ petition was, . thus, on legality of the 
C acquisition of the land or amount of compensation payable therefor. 
(805-D-E( 
1.2. The Division Bench of the High Court misconstrued and 
misinterpreted the provision of Section 38 of the Bangalore Development 
Authority Act; that the Authority has power to lease, sell or otherwise 
D transfer any movable or immovable property belonging to it, subject to 
such restrictions, conditions and limitations, as may be prescribed. The 
State of Karnataka has framed three rules under the Act, namely, (i) 
Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1982; (ii) 
Bangalore Development Authority (allotment of Buildings under Self 
Financing Housing Scheme) Rules, 1982; and (iii) Bangalore Development 
E Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984. 
F 
It is beyond any cavil that the provisions of the Rules were not applicable 
to the allotment in question. Thus, the question of power of the Authority 
being restricted, conditioned or limited in selling or otherwise transferring 
the property would not arise. (805-F-H; 806-A( 
Surinder Singh v. Central Government and Ors., ( 198614SCC667 and 
Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (2004) I SCALE 224, 
relied on. 
I 
K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty and Sons & Co. v. The State of Madras, 
G AIR (1961)SC 1152, distinguished. 
1.3. In the instant case, no restriction, condition or limitation has 
been prescribed and in that view of the matter, the High CQurt committed 
a manifest error in holding that the provisions of the Rules would apply 
to any transfer made by the Authority in favour of any person. Section 
H 38-B which was inserted by Act No.17 of 1994 w.e.f. 20.12.1975 cannot 
' . 
• .. 
+ 
? . 
• 
.... 
' ' 
+ 
PRIN

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