LexURBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER versus MOHAN LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 550 A URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER ~·c~ v. MOHAN LAL (Special Leave Petition [C] No. 29852 of 2009) . ..._ 8 OCTOBER 30, 2009 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] Government Litigation: 't·"' c Litigation by State authorities - Need to eliminate unnecessary litigation - Allotment of plot by Urban Improvement Trust - Improvement Trust later illegally laying road on the plot - When allottee claimed the plot and/or compensation before consumer fora, State authorities resisting the claim on frivolous grounds - Held: It is a matter ... D of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigation by .,.. governments and statutory authorities are on the increase - Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest - They should be responsible litigants - They E cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and highhanded manner - They can not behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives - Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment - They are expected to show j remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an F overbearing manner - When glaring wrong acts by their officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/ restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation - Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted G litigation requires to be corrected - The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of the governments or statutory authorities, but. is attributable to some officers who are responsible for H 550 ·--1 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER v. 551 MOHAN LAL taking decisions and/or officers ;n charge of litigation - Their A reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision making - Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision B making to courts and Tribunals - The Central Government is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and p;actical norms for defending cases filed against the government and for filing appeals and revisions against adverse decisions, thereby, eliminating unnecessary litigation c - The State Governments and the statutory authorities, who have more litigations Jhan the Central Government, should also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigation - Vexatious and unnecessary litigation have been clogging the wheels of justice for too long, making it difficult for courts 0 and Tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants - In the instant case, what is granted by the State Commission is the minimum relief in the facts and circumstances, that is, the direction for allotment of an alternative plot with a nominal compensation of Rs. 50001 E - - But instead of remedying the wrong, by complying with the decision of the Consumer fora, the Improvement Trust is trying to brazen out its illegal act by contending that the allottee should have protested when it illegally laid the road in his plot - It has persisted with its unreasonable and unjust stand by indulging in unnecessary litigation by approaching F the National Commission and then the Supreme Court - The Trust should sensitise its\. officers to serve the public rather than justify their dictatorial acts - It should avoid such an unnecessary litigation - Urban development - Administrative Law - Redressal of grievances of public by State authorities G - Consumer Protection. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 29852 of 2009. H 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A From the Judgment & Order dated 11.11.2008 of the B National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 4120 of 2008. Aruneshwar Gupta for the Petitioner. The Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER R.V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1. The petitioner before us is the C Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust. It allotted a Plot (A-303) measuring 450 sq.ft. under its Karnr Nagar Scheme to the respondent in the year 1991. Respondent paid the allotment price (lease premium) of Rs.3,443/- in 1992 and took pos
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.