Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
Usha Mehta ..Appellant
versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ..Re-
spondents
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against the judgment of
the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby
the writ appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the
order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to inter-
fere with the decision taken by the State Government not to
regularize the lease deed executed in her favour in respect
JUDGMENT
of land measuring 413 sq. yards was upheld.
On an application made by the appellant, the land in
question is said to have been leased out to her vide deed
dated 10.1.1972 prepared by Venkat Rao, the then Inspector
employed in the office of the Estate Officer, Secunderabad in
the name of the Revenue Secretary of the State. After get-
ting the lease deed, the appellant applied for permission to
raise construction. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
Page 1
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
2
refused to grant permission on the ground that the land was
earmarked for road and the lease deed executed in favour of
the appellant appeared to be fictitious. Thereupon, the ap-
pellant approached District Collector and other functionaries
of the Government, who recommended regularization of the
lease. However, vide memo dated 16.11.1988, the State Govern-
ment finally rejected the representation of the appellant.
That memo reads as under:
“GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
REVENUE (0) DEPARTMENT
Memo No.2405/01/86-7 Dated : 16.11.1988 .
Sub:- Land - Hyderabad District - Secunderabad Area
Sardar Patel Road - Lease of land measuring 413 Sq.
yards in favour of Dr.Mrs.Usha Mehta - Reg.
Ref :- 1. From Dr.(Mrs.) Usha Mehta rep. dt. NIL
received on 13.9.1986.
2. Govt. Memo No.2405/01/86-1 dt. 30.9.86.
3. From the Incharge Jt. Collector, Hyderabad letter
No. /6/151 Dt. 7.2.87.
4. From the E.O., Secunderabad and Collector,
Hyderabad, Lr.No.DRO/17/87 dt. 13.4.1987.
JUDGMENT
5. From the C.L.R., Lr.No.BB4/688/87 dt.19.5.87.
Government have carefully examined the representa-
tion of Dr.(Mrs.) Usha Mehta 1st cited in consultation
with the Collector, Hyderabad and Commissioner of Land
Revenue. They consider that the original lease deed it-
self was not issued by an authority competent to issue
and the said document is reported to be a forged one,
and that the mere fact that the lease amount and prop-
erty tax were paid would not make a forged lease docu-
ment a valid one, and hence, any claim based on such a
document cannot and should not be accepted, much less
acted upon. Therefore her request for restoration of
the above said land is rejected accordingly.
The stay granted in the Government memo 2nd cited is
hereby vacated.
Page 2
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
3
Sathi Nair,
Secretary to Government.”
The appellant challenged the decision of the State
Government in Writ Petition No. 17494 of 1988 which was
disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
vide order dated 12.03.1991 with a direction to the State
Government to pass appropriate order after hearing the
appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The relevant portions
of that order are reproduced below:
“A reading of the impugned memo which has been ex-
tracted above, does not show whether the Govern-
ment has considered the regularisation of the
lease on the altered circumstances and conditions
as suggested by the two authorities. When the com-
petent authorities after enquiry found that regu-
larisation can be made, it is the duty of the con-
cerned authorities, at the time of passing the im-
pugned Memo to take note of the recommendations
made by the competent authorities. Without taking
note of the recommendations of the authorities and
without discussing the pros and cons of the mat-
ter, the Government simply issued the impugned
Memo. The contention of the petitioner that the
Government has passed the order without applying
its mind and without taking note of the recommend-
ations of the competent authorities, has some
force. On that simple ground only, the impugned
Memo is quashed and the authorities are directed
to consider the case of the petitioner in the
light of the recommendations made by the Collect-
or, Hyderabad District, in the letter dated
13.4.1987 and the letter of the Commissioner of
Land Revenue dated 19.5.1987.
JUDGMENT
Respondents 4 and 5 who claims portion of the land
contended that they made be given an opportunity
to represent their case before passing the final
order. Since respondents 4 and 5 are claim rights
over the property, this court is not prepared to
investigate into these facts. As the impugned Memo
is set aside on the technical ground, this court
feels that opportunity be given to the respondents
4 and 5 to represent their case. The Government is
directed to pass appropriate orders after giving
due opportunity to respondents 4 and 5 as well as
Page 3
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
4
th
the 6 respondent who has been impleaded during
the pendency of the writ petition and after con-
sidering their respective contention.”
Writ Appeal No.491 of 1991 filed by R.D. Bhoopal
and K.P. Rao (respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition)
against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed
by the Division Bench of the High Court and the State
Government was directed to pass appropriate order by the end
of January, 1992.
In compliance of the direction given by the High
Court, the State Government re-considered the appellant's
plea for regularization of lease, gave opportunity of hearing
to the parties and passed order dated 31.1.1992, paragraphs
13 and 14 of which read as under:
“13. As regards the claim of Dr.(Mrs.) Usha Mehta,
the Government observe that the grant of lease in
favour of her is unauthorised; that the entire
transaction is the result of fraud and collusion
between her and Sri Venkata Rao, the then Inspecor
of Estate Officer, Secunderabad; that any claim
based on forged document should not be accepted
much less acted upon; and that Sri R.D. Bhoopal,
Sri K.P.Rao and Dr. Usha Mehta have no locus
standi to claim the land. Therefore the
Government hold that the parties have no claim of
any kind of land in question and that it is a
Government land. Accordingly their claim
petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT
14. The Government further direct that, as the
piece of land in question firstly allotted to
Mandal Revenue Officer's Office is subsequently
allotted to A.P. Women's Cooperative Finance
Corporation which has spent money in protecting
the land, the land in question be allotted to
A.P.Women's Coop. Finance Corporation permanently
after excluding the area for road widening,
required in public interest as requested by the
th
Collector in his letter 10 read above, is
cancellation of the orders issued in the
Page 4
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
5
th
Government Memo 9 read above.”
Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of her prayer
for regularization of the lease, the appellant filed Writ
Petition No. 1947 of 1992. The learned Single Judge held
that the appellant's claim was founded on a forged document
and no direction can be issued under Article 226 of the
Constitution for regularisation of the lease deed merely
because in other cases lease had been regularised on payment
of the current market value.
The Division Bench of the High Court examined the
record produced by the parties, referred to Article 299 of
the Constitution and some of the judgments of this Court and
held:
“It is now well settled that the provisions of
Article 299 of the Constitution which are
mandatory in character require that a contract
made in the exercise of the executive power of
the Union or of a State mush satisfy three
conditions viz., i) it must be expressed to be
made by the President or by the Governor of the
State, as the case may be; ii) it must be
executed on behalf of the President or the
Governor as the case may be; and iii) its
execution must be by such person and in such
manner as the President or Governor may direct
or authorize. Failure to comply with these
conditions nullifies the contract and renders it
void and unenforceable.”
JUDGMENT
Shri D. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant vehemently argued that even if lease deed dated
10.1.1972 was forged, the High Court should have issued a
direction to the respondents to regularize the same because
in 100 similar cases, the lease deeds executed by Venkat Rao
Page 5
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
6
was regularized by the State Government on payment of market
value. Learned counsel further argued that the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside because neither the
learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench adverted to and
decided the plea of discrimination raised by the appellant.
Smt. C.K. Sucharita, learned counsel for the State
argued that the High Court did not commit any error by
refusing to entertain the appellant’s plea for regularization
of the lease because the initial document prepared in her
favour was forged. She emphasized that even though Venkat
Rao was not authorised by the State Government to execute
lease in favour of any person, he created a fabricated
documents purporting to transfer public land and after taking
cognizance of this fact, the State Government had declined to
regularize the deed allegedly executed in favour of the
appellant on 10.1.1972.
Shri P.V. Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing
for respondent No.2 submitted that his client’s land has
nothing to do with the plot in question and that the
JUDGMENT
appellant has no right to seek regularization of the lease
deed executed in her favour by Venkat Rao. He also discloses
that Venkat Rao has been convicted by the competent Court for
the offence of forgery.
We have considered the arguments of the learned
counsel and carefully perused the record including additional
affidavit dated 22.3.2012 filed by K.V. Suresh Babu in
compliance of orders dated 3.8.2011 and 12.1.2012 passed by
Page 6
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
7
this Court. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of that affidavit are
extracted hereunder:
“2(a). That upon hearing the above appeal, this
Hon'ble. Court (Coram Hon'ble Justice V.S. Sir-
purkar and Hon'ble Justice T.S.Thakur) was pleased
to pass the following order on 3.8.2011:-
"During the course of arguments, the question
arose as to whether the allotments, which were
regularized by the Government were in pursuance of
any definite policy of the State Government. Fur-
ther the question arose as to whether what was the
consideration of the State Government in regular-
izing nine plots as mentioned in Memo No.6/151
dated 20.3.2003. Similarly, the question arose
about the other regularizations made by the State
Government.
Mr. Venkatanarayana, learned senior coun-
sel appearing for the State seeks time to clarify
all these, issues by filing an additional affi-
davit, List these matters after four weeks".
(b) That thereafter upon hearing the matter on
12.1.2012, this Hon'ble Court (Coram: Hon'ble
Justice Deepak Varma and Hon'ble Justice Chan-
dramauli Kumar Prasad) was pleased to pass the
following order-
“Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
3.8.2011, additional Affidavit dated 29/11/2011
has been filed by State/Respondent on 30.11.2011.
Along with additional Affidavit, documents have
also been filed. The question involved in this Ap-
peal is whether in the disputed piece of land ad-
Ward
measuring 413 sq.yds. in TSL.R-2, Block-B,
-101, Secunderabad, road has been widened and
remaining part of land is being used for paid
parking or not or it is yet to be widened.
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for Appellant has seriously re-
futed the said averment and according to him, it
is only a proposal for road widening, pending
since 1975. But till date, no road has been
widened and no area has been earmarked for paid
parking.
In view of this disputed position, we direct the
Respondent/State to file documents to show and
substantiate when the road was widened through
Page 7
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
8
which Contractor and since when the paid
parking is being used.
Mr.Anoop Choudhary, learned senior counsel for Re-
spondent/State, prayed for four weeks' time to
clarify the position by filing further Affidavit
and documents in this regard. While doing so, the
previous order passed by this Court may also be
complied with.
List these matters after four weeks.
3. That it is submitted that out of the total ex-
tent of 413 square yards of land in issue in the
present case, an extent of 299 square yards is
covered by road being part of 150 feet wide heavy
traffic road- S.P. Road in Hyderabad city. As is
evident from the letter dated 2.2,2012 of the Ex-
ecutive Engineer, PD-II, GHMC the said road was
laid long back. Hence no records are available in
the office. A true photocopy of the said letter
dated 2.2.2012 of the executive Engineer, PD-II,
GHMC, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is
annexed hereto as Annexure - VII . Further, as is
evident from the tender notifications/circulars
issued' for the purpose, the remaining extent of
114 square yards of land is used by the Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation since the
year,.1999 as paid parking site for vehicles.
The photographs of the suit land showing the
portion of the land in issue (299 square yards)
which is covered by road and the parking lot are
annexed hereto as Annexure-VIII (Colly).
The map of the area clearly showing that the
land in issue is covered by road and parking lot
is annexed hereto as Annexure IX.
JUDGMENT
A true photocopy of the tender notification
dated 13.3.2000 by the Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad calling for applications for leasing out
the right to collect parking fee from two wheelers
and 4-wheelers on identified roads at road margin
including the land in issue (mentioned at S.No.97
of the Annexure there as Scooter Parking on road
side from Ashok Bhoopal Chambers to May Fair Com-
plex on SP Road) is annexed hereto as Annexure X.
A true photocopy of circular dated
13/14.5.2010 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation directing all the Zonal Commissioners
to complete the sealed tender-cum-open auction by
1.6.2010 for parking lots mentioned in the Annex-
Page 8
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
9
ure thereto including the land in issue (at
S.No.22-Ashok Bhupal Chamber to Reliance Web
World, S.P. Road, Secunderabad- is annexed hereto
as Annexure XI.
4. That it is submitted that the status of the
102 illegal, bogus and forged lease-deeds is as
follows:-
I. 51) cases were founds to be not fit for filing
land grabbing cases. The details of action in
these cases are as follows:
i)
Assigned (Sold) by Government on 9 payment of
market value as the lessees had put up construc-
tion and were in possession thereof (Annexure
XII)
ii)
Bogus renewal lease deeds cancelled 29 and fresh
lease deeds issued in lieu thereof to the same
persons since they were in possession thereof and
had constructed residential houses, (original
leases prior to Bogus renewal leases were genuine
in these cases) -Annexure XIII.
iii)
Lease deeds after expiry of (30) years 13 period
bogus renewal deeds issued but families of origin-
al lessees are residing in old buildings existing
thereon and fresh renewal deeds issued as the ori-
ginal leases were genuine Annexure XIV.
TOTAL 51
(II) In (45) cases Land Grabbing cases were filed
by Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad.
JUDGMENT
i)
Certain cases disposed off by Civil 4 Courts
with a direction to the lessees (Respondents) to
pay the market value as fixed by the Government
-lessees were in possession (Annexure XV)
ii)
Cases pending in the Civil Courts 30
(Annexure XVI)
iii)
Cases with drawn and conveyance 10 deeds
were issued since the lease deeds were found to be
genuine (Annexure XVII)
iv)
Free Hold orders issued by the Special 1 Chief
Secretary. & Chief Commissioner of Land Adminis-
tration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as the original
lease was genuine and Conveyance Deed not yet ex-
ecuted due to pendency of Civil Dispute in Court
Page 9
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
1
(Annexure –XVIII)
TOTAL 45
(III)
Leases not covered by encroachments and kept 3 va-
cant-required for road widening etc and not regularized.
(Annexure XIX)
(IV)
Under the possession of religious institutions.
(i)
Church of South India (Civil Suit is pending)
(ii) Mosque New Bhoiguda 1 (Annexure XX)
V) The land in issue in the present case ad-
measuring 1 413 square yards which already covered
by a 150' wide road and paid parking lot.
Total (I, II, III, IV and V) 102
In our opinion, the appeal is wholly meritless and
liable to be dismissed for more than one reasons, which are
enumerated below:
1. The finding recorded by the State Government that the
lease deed allegedly executed on behalf of the Estate Officer
was a forged document and no right much less a vested right
was created in favour of the appellant on the basis of such
JUDGMENT
document is based on the correct analysis of the documents
produced by the parties and the High Court did not commit any
error by refusing to interfere with that finding. Learned
counsel for the appellant could not produce any document to
show that Venkat Rao was authorised by the State Government
to execute lease on its behalf in favour of the appellant.
Therefore, it is not possible to find any fault with
G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 31.1.1992.
2. The plea of discrimination raised by the appellant was
Page 10
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
1
wholly misconceived and the High Court rightly declined to
entertain the same. Article 14 of the Constitution declares
that:
“14. Equality before law.—The State shall not
deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the ter-
ritory of India.”
The concept of equality enshrined in that art-
icle is a positive concept. The Court can command the State
to give equal treatment to similarly situated persons, but
cannot issue a mandate that the State should commit illegal-
ity or pass wrong order because in another case such an il-
legality has been committed or wrong order has been passed.
If any illegality or irregularity has been committed in fa-
vour of an individual or a group of individuals, others can-
not invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this
Court and seek a direction that the same irregularity or il-
legality be committed in their favour by the State or its
agencies/instrumentalities. In other words, Article 14 cannot
be invoked for perpetuating irregularities or illegalities.
JUDGMENT
The question whether Article 14 can be invoked
for compelling public authorities to pass an illegal order or
commit an illegality on the ground that in other cases,
similar order has been passed or illegality has been
committed is no longer res integra and has to be answered
against the appellant. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit
Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745, this Court considered the question
Page 11
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
1
whether the High Court was right in invoking Article 14 of
the Constitution for compelling the appellant to pass an
order contrary to law merely because in another case such an
order was passed and answered the same in negative by making
the following observations:
“ … We are of the opinion that the basis or the
principle, if it can be called one, on which the
writ petition has been allowed by the High Court
is unsustainable in law and indefensible in prin-
ciple. Since we have come across many such in-
stances, we think it necessary to deal with such
pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the
mere fact that the respondent Authority has passed
a particular order in the case of another person
similarly situated can never be the ground for is-
suing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the
plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the
other person might be legal and valid or it might
not be. That has to be investigated first before
it can be directed to be followed in the case of
the petitioner. If the order in favour of the oth-
er person is found to be contrary to law or not
warranted in the facts and circumstances of his
case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarran-
ted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a
writ compelling the respondent Authority to repeat
the illegality or to pass another unwarranted or-
der. (emphasis in original) The extraordinary and
discretionary power of the High Court cannot be
exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the
respondent Authority has passed one illegal/unwar-
ranted order, it does not entitle the High Court
to compel the authority to repeat that illegality
over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted ac-
tion must be corrected, if it can be done accord-
ing to law—indeed, wherever it is possible, the
court should direct the appropriate authority to
correct such wrong orders in accordance with law—
but even if it cannot be corrected, it is diffi-
cult to see how it can be made a basis for its re-
petition. (emphasis supplied) By refusing to dir-
ect the respondent Authority to repeat the illeg-
ality, the court is not condoning the earlier il-
legal act/order nor can such illegal order consti-
tute the basis for a legitimate complaint of dis-
crimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be
prejudicial to the interests of law and will do
incalculable mischief to public interest. It will
JUDGMENT
Page 12
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
1
be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of
course, if in case the order in favour of the oth-
er person is found to be a lawful and justified
one it can be followed and a similar relief can be
given to the petitioner if it is found that the
petitioner's case is similar to the other person's
case. But then why examine another person's case
in his absence rather than examining the case of
the petitioner who is present before the court and
seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and
convenient to examine the entitlement of the peti-
tioner before the court to the relief asked for in
the facts and circumstances of his case than to
enquire into the correctness of the order made or
action taken in another person's case, which other
person is not before the case ( sic court) nor is
his case. In our considered opinion, such a course
—barring exceptional situations—would neither be
advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High
Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted
norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that
because in one case a particular order has been
passed or a particular action has been taken, the
same must be repeated irrespective of the fact
whether such an order or action is contrary to law
or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own
merits, factual and legal, in accordance with rel-
evant legal principles. The orders and actions of
the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments
of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they
be elevated to the level of the precedents, as un-
derstood in the judicial world.”
Similar is the ratio of the judgments of this
JUDGMENT
Court in Narain Das v. Improvement Trust, Amritsar (1973) 2
SCC 265; Gursharan Singh v. NDMC (1996) 2 SCC 459, Jaipur De-
velopment Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain (1997) 1 SCC 37, Yadu
Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 1 SCC 334, State of
Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann (1997) 3 SCC 321 , Faridabad CT
Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services (1997) 7 SCC 752, Style
(Dress land) v. UT, Chandigarh (1999) 7 SCC 752, State of Bi-
har v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (2000) 9 SCC 94, Union of India
v. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437, Ekta Shakti
Page 13
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
1
Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006) 10 SCC 337, Sanjay
Kumar Manjul v. UPSC (2006) 8 SCC 42, K.K. Bhalla v. State of
M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581, National Institute of Technology v.
Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary (2007) 1 SCC 93, Vice-Chancellor,
M.D. University v. Jahan Singh (2007) 5 SCC 77, State of Ker-
ala v. K. Prasad (2007) 7 SCC 140, Punjab SEB v. Gurmail
Singh (2008) 7 SCC 245 and Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan
(2009) 2 SCC 589 and Shanti Sports Club v. Union of
India(2009) 15 SCC 705.
It is also apposite to note that even though the
appellant had raised the plea of discrimination, she did not
produce any evidence to prove that other cases were identical
to her case. In the absence of such evidence, the High Court
could not have relied upon the bald statement contained in
the writ petition filed by the appellant and quashed the well
reasoned decision taken by the State Government not to regu-
larise the lease in her favour.
3. The lease deed executed in favour of the appellant
JUDGMENT
was ex-facie contrary to the doctrine of equality enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution. It is neither the pleaded
case of the appellant nor any material has been produced by
her to show that lease deed dated 10.1.1972 was executed
after issuing an advertisement so as to enable other eligible
persons to compete for allotment of public land. In Akhil
Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others (2011) 5 SCC 29, this Court considered the question
whether the State Government had the power to allot a piece
Page 14
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
1
of land in the name of a political-cum-social leader for the
purpose of establishing a training institute albeit without
issuing any advertisement. After considering the scope of
Article 14 of the Constitution in the matter of grant of li-
cence, allotment of land, distribution of largesse etc. and
noticing the judgments in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India
AIR 1967 SC 1427, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Air-
port Authority of India and others (1979) 3 SCC 489, Kasturi
Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K (1980) 4 SCC 1, Common
Cause (petrol pumps matter) v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC
530, Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and others V. State of U.P.
and others (1991) 1 SCC 212, LIC v. Consumer Education and
Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 and New India Public School
and others v. HUDA and others (1996) 5 SCC 510, this Court
observed:
“What needs to be emphasised is that the State
and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give
largesse to any person according to the sweet will
and whims of the political entities and/or
officers of the State. Every action/decision of
the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to
give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on
a sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined
policy, which shall be made known to the public by
publication in the Official Gazette and other
recognised modes of publicity and such policy must
be implemented/executed by adopting a non-
discriminatory and non-arbitrary method
irrespective of the class or category of persons
proposed to be benefited by the policy. The
distribution of largesse like allotment of land,
grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State
and its agencies/instrumentalities should always
be done in a fair and equitable manner and the
element of favouritism or nepotism shall not
influence the exercise of discretion. If any,
conferred upon the particular functionary or
officer of the State.
JUDGMENT
Page 15
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
1
We may add that there cannot be any policy, much
less, a rational policy of allotting land on the
basis of applications made by individuals,
bodies, organizations or institutions dehors an
invitation or advertisement by the State or its
agency/instrumentality. By entertaining
applications made by individuals, organisations
or institutions for allotment of land or for
grant of any other type of largesse the State
cannot exclude other eligible persons from
lodging competing claim. Any allotment of land
or grant of other form of largesse by the State
or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating
the exercise as a private venture is liable to
be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an
act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the
soul of the equality clause embodied in Article
14 of the Constitution.”
In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the
following directions are given:
(i) Within two months from today, the State
Government shall take possession of the land and, if
necessary, by demolishing the illegal structures
which may have been raised by the appellant or any
other person.
JUDGMENT
(ii) Within next four weeks, a report showing
compliance of the aforesaid direction be submitted in
the Registry of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
(iii) The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court
shall take orders from the Chief Justice and list the
case before an appropriate Bench. If it is found
that the State functionaries have failed to comply
with the aforesaid direction, then the High Court
Page 16
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
1
shall initiate proceedings against the defaulting
officers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment to the Registrar (Judicial), Andhra Pradesh High
Court by Fax.
.............................J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
NEW DELHI; .............................J.
OCTOBER 16, 2012 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]
JUDGMENT
Page 17
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NO.360 OF 2002
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
Usha Mehta ..Petitioner
versus
Krishna Paratpar Rao and others ..Re-
spondents
O R D E R
In this petition filed under Article 129 of the Constitution
read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and Rule-3
(C) of the Rules to regulate proceedings for contempt of the Supreme
Court, 1975, the petitioner has prayed for punishing the respondents
for violating order dated 1.10.2001 passed in SLP (C)No.16383/2001.
JUDGMENT
Today, we have dismissed the appeal (Civil Appeal
NO.3501/2003 arising out of SLP (C) No.16383/2001). Therefore, the
Contempt Petition is also dismissed.
.............................J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
NEW DELHI; .............................J.
OCTOBER 16, 2012 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]
Page 18
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3501 OF 2003
1
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3501 OF 2003
USHA MEHTA Appellant (s)
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and
office report)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NO. 360 OF 2002 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3501/2003
(with appln(s) for exemption from filing OT and with office report)
Date: 16/10/2012 This Appeal and Petition were called on for
hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
For Appellant(s) Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv.
Mr. M.H. Prasad, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv.
(State)
Mr. P.V. Shetty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Pardesi, Adv.
JUDGMENT
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the Non-
Reportable Judgement.
As a sequel to this, the contempt petition filed
by the appellant is also dismissed.
(Parveen Kr.Chawla)
(Phoolan Wati Arora)
Court Master
Court Master
[signed Non-Reportable Judgment and order are placed on the file]
Page 19