The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagrathna while hearing an appeal opined that High Court has not at all noted and/or considered that the Writ Appeal filed by the predecessor-in-title of the respondents was pending before the High Court, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Facts
The respondents purchased the land in question from one Gajanand Mali and Nandkishore, the predecessor-in-title. With respect to the land in question a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“Act of 1894”) was issued. Thereafter objections u/s 5-A of the Act of 1894 were invited. Gajanand Mali and Nandkishore and other landowners submitted their objections, which were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved, the original landowner preferred a Writ Petition which was dismissed.
Procedural History
The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the Gajanand Mali came to be allowed by the Division Bench and remanded the matter back to the Land Acquisition Officer for deciding the objections afresh. Gajanand Mali and other predecessor-in-title preferred Writ Petition challenging the notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894, which was dismissed. Letters Patent Appeal by the Gajanand Mali came to be dismissed by the Division Bench as not maintainable. Gajanand Mali withdrew the appeals before this Court with liberty to prefer the Letters Patent Appeal as in the meantime in view of the change in law, the Letters Patent Appeal were held to be maintainable. Gajanand Mali thereafter had preferred Writ Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge which was reported to be pending. The respondents filed the present Writ Petition which was dismissed due to delay and latches. Respondents then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench and the High Court allowed the said appeal and quashed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and held that the respondents are also entitled to the same relief, which was granted in favour of Gajanand Mali.
Contentions Made
Appellant: There was sufficient evidence to show that the respondent committed fraud and forgery by manipulating the signatures of the complainant Mrs. Meera Srivastava, opening an account, operating the account, and appropriating the sum of Rs.20,000/- received through a demand draft as compensation on the demise of her husband. Insofar as the remaining charges are concerned, the documents led to an irresistible conclusion that even those charges relating to insubordination, disobeying the orders of the higher authorities, forging the suspension letters were proved and even by themselves were sufficient to award the punishment of dismissal from service.
Respondent: In terms of the impugned judgment charges other than charges 4 & 5 were in any case not proved as no evidence had been led in that behalf and reliance could not be placed only on documents. Charges 4 & 5 were also not proved and sought to refer to the judgment of this Court in Lalit Popli vs Canara Bank.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“We are of the opinion that once the very acquisition and the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were the subject matter of other proceedings pending before the High Court, in order to avoid any further conflicting orders and even otherwise on the basis of proprietary the High Court, instead of deciding the present appeal separately ought to have ensured that all the appeals with respect to the same acquisition, where the notifications were challenged, are heard together. That has not been done in the instant case.”
Judgment
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the High Court to decide the writ appeals in accordance with law without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned judgment and order one way or the other, at the earliest.
Case Name: M.P. Housing Board & Anr. vs Satish Kumar Batra and Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO.1116 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagrathna
Decided on:10th February 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments