High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raghu Raj Singh v. State Of U.P.And Others - WRIT - C No. 9901 of 2004  RD-AH 132 (10 March 2004)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 9901 OF 2004
Raghu Raj Singh ------------- Petitioner
State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. ------------- Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Ghanshyam Dass, J.
(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.)
Heard Shri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Shri Nurul Huda, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, and Shri Ved Byas Misra, Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3. No need to issue notice to respondent no. 4 at this stage as we are not passing any order adversely affecting the rights of respondent no. 4.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he has purchased a constructed house from the respondent Ghaziabad Development Authority, and a chunk of land is lying vacant adjacent to his house. The Government has adopted a policy to allot the land adjacent to the occupier of the house. But instead of allowing the said land to petitioner, it has been put to auction and as the respondent no. 4 was the highest bidder, it has been allotted to him. Hence this writ petition.
The Hon'ble Apex Court as it has consistently and persistently been held that every public property is to be settled either by auction or by inviting tenders and by no other means.
In Sacchidanand Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with public property, the executive must make an endeavour to dispose it of by public auction or by inviting tenders, though that is the ordinary rule, may not be an invariable rule. Where there are compelling circumstances necessitating the departure therefrom then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Therefore, in case of dealing with public property, certain percepts and principles have to be observed and public interest is the paramount consideration and when a public property is disposed of, they should try to get the maximum price.
In Ram & Shyam Co. Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"A welfare State exists for largest good of the larger number, moreso when it proclaims to be the socialist State dedicated to eliminate poverty. All its attempts should be to obtain the best available price while disposing of its property because the greater is the revenue, the welfare activities will get a fillip and shot in the arm. Fiancial constrains may weaken the tempo of activities. Such an approach serves the larger public purpose of extending welfare activities primarily for which the Constitution envisages the setting-up of a Welfare State."
In Chenchu Rami Reddy Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors., AIR 1986 SC 1158, the Hon'ble Apex Court indicated that the best method of disposal of public property is by public auction and not by private negotiation and the authorities entrusted with care of public property are required to show exemplary vigilance. Similar view has been reiterated in Rashbihari Panda Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1969 SC 1081; M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy Vs. State of J & K, AIR 1980 SC 1992; and State of Haryana Vs. Jage Ram, AIR 1983 SC 1207.
In Nand Kishore Vs. State of Punjab, (1995) 6 SCC 614, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"Under Article 141, the law declared by it is of a binding character and as commandful as the law made by a legislative body or an authorised delegatee of such body. ........................ the Court is not merely the interpreter of the law as existing but much beyond that. The Court as a wing of the State is by itself a source of law. The law is what the Court says it is. ........"
Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that the State authorities do not have any right to settle the public property by any mode other than auction or by inviting tenders. Settlement of a very small area having no access etc. may be permissible in favour of the person having plot/house in adjacent thereto only in exceptional circumstances, if there is no buyer, or its disposal is not possible by auction or inviting tenders.
Petitioner earlier has filed a suit for injunction, and has approached this Court, in flagrant and utter disregard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 1977 SC 898 wherein it has been submitted that if a person has approached the trial court, even if the suit has been withdrawn or dismissed in default or on merit, he has no right to approach the writ Court for any relief to the same subject matter. The said suit filed by the petitioner is still pending. Thus the petition cannot be entertained.
We are not in a position to accept the submission made by Shri Rajvanshi that in past a large number of persons have been allotted the land in view of the policy and, therefore, petitioner cannot be given a discriminatory and hostile treatment for the reason that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage the negative equality and the constitution framer has enacted the provision of Article 14 only to deal with a positive equality. (Vide Snehprabha Vs. State of U.P. & ors., AIR 1996 SC 540; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35; State of Haryana Vs. Ram Kumar Maan, (1997) 3 SCC 321; and M/s. Faridabad Ct. Scan Centre Vs. Director General, Health Services & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 752; Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Sampuran Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1347; Union of India & ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar, 2001 AIR SCW 1458; State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240; Yogesh Kumar & ors vs. Government of NCT, Delhi & ors., 2003 (3) SCC 548; and Union of India & anr. Vs. International Trading Company & anr., (2003) 5 SCC 437).
This policy of selling the property in such a manner as it adversely affects the public exchequer is liable to be ignored/quashed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Ganesh Tripathi & ors. Vs. State of U.P. & ors., AIR 1997 SC 1446.
Thus, in view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. We hereby direct the respondents not to settle the property in future by negotiation. It must be settled either by inviting tenders or putting the property to auction.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.