THE RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION versus SUBHASH SINDHI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY JAIPUR & ORS,

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 12-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 4 S.C.R. 978 
A 
THE RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION 
v. 
SUBHASH SINDHI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY 
JAIPUR & ORS. 
B 
(Civil Appeal No. 7254 of 2003 etc.) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.) 
C 
Land Acquisition - Release of Land from acquisition -
Agreement for sale of land, after it was notified uls.4 of Land 
Acquisition Act - Challenge to the acquisition proceedings by 
the vendor and vendee dismissed with liberty to ask for 
release of the land on the ground of parity - Writ petition by 
D 
vendee for release of the land allowed - Held: High Court 
wrongly directed release of the land - The agreement to sell, 
entered into subsequent to the Notification under Land 
Acquisition Act, did not create any title in favour of the vendee 
- Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - s.4. 
E 
Estoppel - There can be no estoppel against the law or 
public policy - A statutory body cannot be estopped from 
denying that it had entered into a contract which was ultra 
vi res. 
F 
Circulars/Notice/Guidelines - Executive instructions 
which have no statutory force, cannot override law - Therefore, 
any notice, circular, guidelines, etc. which run contrary to 
statutory laws, cannot be enforced - In the instant case, 
circulars issued be State Government, being inconsistent with 
G the policy and law regarding acquisition, cannot be taken note 
of - Issuance of such circulars amounts to committing f1aud 
upon statutes and also tantamounts to colourable exercise of 
power. 
H 
978 
RAJASTHAN STATE INDST. DEV & INV CORPN. v. SUBHASH 
979 
SINDHI COOP. HSG SOC., JAIPUR 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Doctrine of A 
discrimination - Held: Article 14 does not envisage negative 
equality - Doctrine of discrimination is applicable only when 
invidious discrimination is meted out to equals, similarly 
circumstanced without any rational basis or to relationship that 
would warrant such discrimination. 
B 
Writs: Purpose, nature and grant of - Held: Primary 
purpose of writ is to protect and establish rights and to impose 
corresponding imperative duty existing in law - It cannot be 
granted unless an existing legal right of the applicant and 
existent duty of the respondent is established - Writ does not C 
create or establish a legal right, but enforces one which stood 
already established - The writ is equitable in nature and thus 
its issuance is governed by equitable principles - Grant of writ 
is at the discretion of the Court - The Courts to exercise such 
discretion on the ground of public policy, public interest and 
D 
public good. 
Writ of Mandamus - Grant of - Criteria discussed. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Void' - Meaning of. 
'Discrimination' - Meaning of. 
E 
F 
A large area of land, including the land in question, 
was notified u/s. 4(1) of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 
1953 for the purpose of industrial development, to be 
executed by the appellant-Corporation. Immediately 
thereafter, the respondent-Society entered into an 
agreement to sell, with the khatedars of the land in 
question. Subsequently, on declaration u/s. 6 of the Act, 
G 
possession of the notified land, including the land in 
question, was taken by the Government, which was 
handed-over to the appellant-Corporation. The land in 
question, alongwith other piece of land was further 
allotted by the appellant-Corporation to respondent No.37 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A (a Company). 
The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the 
khatedars of the land in question and the respondent-
Society jointly in writ petition before High Court of 
8 Rajasthan at Jodhpur which was dismissed on the 
ground of delay and laches. SLP against the same was 
also dismissed, but with the observation that the 
dismissal would not operate as res-judicata if the society 
approached the Court for release of the land on the 
C ground that iand of similarly situated persons were 
released from acquisition. 
The respondent-Society filed writ petition, praying for 
release of the land in question. The petition was allowed 
with direction to release the land in question in favour of 
D the respondent-Society. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Acquisition proceedings cannot be 
challenged at a belated stage. In the instant case, the 
E earlier writ petition filed by the society and the khatedars 
jointly, was dismissed by the High Court only on the 

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