Land laws:
Resumption of allotted land – Respondent-State allotted a land to appellant-Society on certain terms and conditions – After few years, Respondent-State resumed the land in terms of clause 4 of allotment order for public purpose – Writ petitions by appellantSociety on the ground of mala fides – According to the appellants, since they were the members of the opposition party, the party in power at that time due to political rivalry issued the impugned resumption order – Single Judge of High Court quashed the resumption order – However, Division Bench of High Court allowed appeals and restored resumption order – On appeal, held: A plea of mala fides was only based on the averment that since the appellant was a member of the opposition party, the party in power at that time took the impugned action to resume the land against them – Such averment by itself would not constitute a plea of mala fides without there being any substantial material in its support – The Division Bench of High Court was right in upholding the resumption order as being legal and in conformity with clause 4 of the allotment order – No interference with the view of the Division Bench of High Court called for.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Admittedly, the land in question belonged to the State. Clause 4 of the allotment order empowered the State to resume the land either in the event of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the allotment order by the appellant or if it is required for public purpose. The State admittedly exercised the right of resumption of the land for a public purpose. A plea of mala fides has no factual and legal foundation to sustain because it is only based on the averment that since the appellant happened to be a member of the opposition party, the party in power at that time had taken the impugned action to resume the land against them. Such averments by itself did not constitute a plea of mala fides without there being any substantial material in its support. The appellants having failed to point out any legal infirmity in the resumption order except to take the plea based on mala fides, the Division Bench was right in upholding the resumption order as being legal and in conformity with clause 4 of the allotment order. The view taken by the Division Bench did not call for interference. The State will ensure that the land in question would only be used for the public purpose and not for other purposes. [Paras 15, 16][1045-D-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.