Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's orders directing regularisation of the land and the subsequent clarificatory order were indefensible and set them aside, as the Court failed to consider the corporation’s pleas and cannot add new directions not present in the original order.

Summary

The respondent sought a writ under Article 226 directing the Municipal Corporation of Jaipur to regularise his plot of land based on a 1989 resolution of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA). The corporation contended it was not bound by the predecessor authority's decision, and raised pleas of delay, laches and the need to consider the respondent's 1996 application filed with it. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ and later, in a clarificatory order, substituted its earlier judgment by adding new directions, without addressing the corporation’s pleas. The Supreme Court held that both the original and the clarificatory orders were indefensible because the High Court failed to consider the corporation’s contentions and cannot add directions not present in the earlier order. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s orders and directed the corporation to deal with the 1996 application in accordance with law, adjusting any deposit made by the respondent or refunding it with interest. The appeals were disposed of without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court could direct the Municipal Corporation to regularise land on the basis of a predecessor authority's resolution without considering pleas of delay, laches and the corporation's own statutory powers.
Whether a clarificatory order may substitute or add to the directions of an earlier judgment.
Whether the Municipal Corporation is bound by decisions of its predecessor body, the JDA/JOA.
Whether the direction to regularise the land is sustainable under law.

Subjects

Municipal CorporationLand regularisationWrit petitionArticle 226Predecessor authorityDelay and lachesClarificatory orderBinding effect of resolutions

Judgment

,, 7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR A
r v.
SHANKARLAL

FEBRUARY 3, 2006
\
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ filed by Respondent
!
seeking direction to Municipal Corporation to regularise a plot of land-
Allowed by High Court-Challenge to-Held: Order of High Court not
sustainable since while passing the direction, the Court did not consider various
c
pleas raised by the Corporation-Municipalities-Regularization of land.

Clarificatory order-Scope and extent of-Direction of High Court to
Corporation to regularise a plot of land-Respondent aggrieved by certain
steps taken by Corporation filed application seeking clarification-High Court D
while dealing with the application virtually substituted its earlier order by a
fresh one-Held: Not permissible, as directions which were not given in earlier
order cannot be incorporated in the subsequent order-Municipalities-
Regularization of land.

In 1984, Respondent filed an application for regularization of a plot of E
land before the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA). While the application
was pending consideration, JOA passed a resolution in 1989 to regularize lands
of similarly situated persons like the Respondent. Subsequently, the land in
dispute stood transferred to the Appellant-Corporation. Respondent filed an
application for regularization before the Appellant in 1996. He filed a writ
petition in 1999 before High Court for direction to Appellant to regularize F
the land on basis of the 1989 JOA resolution. In response, Appellant raised
various pleas viz. that it was not bound by any decision taken by its predecessor
body i.e. JDA and that the writ petition was not maintainable on grounds of
delay and laches. But the High Court allowed the writ petition without
considering t~e said pleas of the Aprellant, and held that the Corporation G
was bound to regularize the Respondent's land on the pattern of the 1989
JDA resolution. Aggrieved by certain steps taken by the Appellant-
., Corporation, Respondent filed an application before High Court seeking
"clarification in the order". High Court disposed of the application holding

61 H
~
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.
62
A that the action taken by the Appellant was in flagrant disregard and violation
of the High Court's earlier order. Both the orders of High Court are under
challenge in the present appeals.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

B HELD: I. The orders of the High Court both in the writ petition and
the so called clarificatory order are clearly indefensible. As a matter of fact,
the High Court did not consider various pleas taken by the Appellant-
Corporation regarding delayed approach and the effect of any decision taken
by the predecessor budy on it. It was not explained before the High Court as '
c to why the Respondent filed a11 application before the Appellant-Corporation
in 1996 if he was really str.king his claim on the basis of an application made "
earlier. Maximum that could have been done by the High Court in such a
situation was to direct the Appellant-Corporation to deal with the request
made in 1996, in accordance with law. The direction given for regularization
is clearly unsustainable. The High Court while dealing with application for
D clarification virtually substituted his earlier judgment by a fresh one.
Directions which were not given in the earlier order were incorporated in the
subsequent order which was also impermissible. Direction could not have been
given by the High Court to regularize on the basis of the earlier decision of •
JDA without deciding the binding effect, if any of the said decision of the
Appellant-Corporation. (65-G, H; 66-A-B]
E
2.1. Once the orders passed by the High Court are held to be
indefensible, any consequent action to give effect to the order without prejudice

F
to the stand taken in the appeals before this Court can by no stretch of
imagination be said to have conferred any right on the Respondent, much
less effecting the merits of the appeal. (66-E]
..
2.2. It is however directed that the application dated 27.9.1996 filed by
the Responde'!t shall be dealt with by the Appellant-Corporation in
accordance with law. The amount which is stated to have been deposited shall
be adjusted against the amount, if any, fixed by the Appellant-Corporation,
G if it chooses to regularize the land in question. However, if it decides not to
regularize the land the amount shall be returned to the Respondent with
interest at the rate of 9% from the date of deposit till the amount is refunded.
(66-F-G]
-

..
~

CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3468-69 of
H 2003.
MUNICIPALCORPORATIONv. SHANKARLAL[PASAYAT.J.J. 63
Y From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.11.2000 of the Rajasthan High A
Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.33/2000 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3536/99 and final ~rder dated 23.11.2000 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal
(Writ) No.2552/2000.

WITH
B
C.A. No. 3470 of 2003.

Altaf Ahmed, A.P. IJhamija, Sarad Singhania, H.D. Thanvi and Sushi!
Kumar Jain for the Appellant

Aruneshwar Gupta and Naveen Kumar Singh for the Respondent C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These appeals are directed against the orders
0

passed by a learned :Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.3536 of 1999 disposed of on 6.12.1999 and the order dated D
.~· 10.11.2000 passeJ on an application filed for "seeking clarification" of the
order dated 6.12.1999.

A brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary for deciding
the controversy involved ...
E
The respondent filed a Writ Petition for a direction to the appellant-
Corporation to regularize the land i.e. plot No.113, Near Central School,
Bajaj Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. It was the case of the writ petitioner that the
regularization was to be done in view of the decision -taken by the Jaipur
Development Authority (in short 'JDA') dated 6.11.1989. It is to be noted F
that the land originally belonged to the Jaipur Urban Improvement Trust,
which body was succeeded by the JDA and finally by the appellant-
Corporation. The respondent stated that he had filed an application for
regularization before the JDA on 18.9.1984.

The prayer in the writ petition was resisted on several grounds by the G
appellant-Corporation. Fir~tly, it was pointed out that the corporation was not
bound by any decision taken by its predecessor body i.e. the JDA. Jn fact the
respondent had filed an application for regularization on 27.9.1996 and his
application was to be considered in the light of statutory provisions and
regulations governing the appellant-Corporation. It was specifically urged
that the writ application filed in 1999 seeking enforcement of a resolution on H
\

64 Sl!PRE\1F COi RT REPORTS [20061 2 S.C.R.

A the basis of an application which was filed earlier to tht! resolution has to be
ignored and the application made in 1984 is of no consequence. It was
specifically pointed out that the writ petition was not maintainable on the
grounds of delay and !aches.

By the judgment dated 6.12.1999 a learned Single Judge of the High
B Court disposed of the writ application without dealing with aforesaid stands
of the appellant-Corporation and inter alia gave the following directions:

"In my considered view, the application dated 18.9.1984 of the
petitioner for regularization was undoubtedly pending on the decision
taken by the JDA on or about 6.11.1989 when vIde Agenda Item
c N0.42.14 the JDA decided to regularize the lands of similarly situated
persons like the petitioner but his case was not n:gularized and
according to the respondent-Corporation his case is pending
consideration after receipt of the file of the petitioner's land in dispute
from the JOA. However, since after the decision of the JDA the land
D in dispute stands transferred to the respondent Corporation, the
respondent Corporation is bound to regularize the petitioner's land on
tht: pattern of the JOA 's decision tak.:n for similarly placed land •
occupiers like the petitioner whose cast:s have been regularized by
the JOA in its decision referrt:d to above. Non consideration and not
deciding the petitioner's case for regularization even after the land
E stood transfemd from the JDA to the respondent Corporation on the
pattern of the JOA is per se arbitrary. Consequently, this writ petition
deserves to be allowed.

As a result of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. ...
The respondent Municipal Corporation Jaipur is directed to regularize
F the land of the petitioner (i.e. Plot No.113, Near Central School,
Bajaj Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, which is in his possession) in view
of the decisions dated 6.11. I 989 and I 7 .5. I 989 of the Jaipur
Development Authority referred to by the petitioner in his writ petition.
The orders for aforesaid regularization be passed within a period of
G four weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. No
order as to costs."

An application was filed by the respondent seeking "clarification in the order" 1 -
making a grievance that the appellant-Corporation was charging prevalent
market rate. The learned Single Judge by order dated I 0.11.2000 disposed of
H the said application and held that the action taken by the appellant-Corporation
,. 1
MUNICIPALCORPORATfON v. SHANKARLAL [PASAYAT, J.] 65
y was in flagrant disregard and violation of the order dated 6.12.1999. It was A
further held that the direction of the Commissioner of the Corporation fixing
the amount at Rs. I crore 7 lacs was beyond the scope of the order passed by
the High Court earlier and was not within the purview of the orders of the
Court. Both these orders are under challenge in these appeals.

Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel for the appellant-Corporation B
submitted that the orders of the High Court are clearly unsustainable. The
r High Court did not consider the specific pleas of the Corporation that (a) it
was not bound by any decision taken in 1989 by the JOA when it had its own
prescriptions (b) the writ application was highly belated. Further, the High
Court did not indicate any basis for its conclusion that the Corporation was
bound by the earlier decision of the JOA in the matter of fixation of rate. ft
c
also did not record any finding on the aspect that the writ petitioner was
seeking direction on the basis of the letter which was written about five years
before the decision of JDA. It was also seeking enforcement of the decision
after abo•tt a decade without any explanation whatsoever being offered for
the abnormal delay in approaching the Court. In any event, the resolution of D
,J the JOA on which the High Court placed reliance was in fact in the nature
of enabling provision and it was by no stretch of imagination a mandatory
one. It is inconceivable that the rate prevalent in 1989 was to be adopted even
.
when the regularization was directed to be done by the High Court in 1999.
•
The High Court clearly overlooked the same. Further, the High Court has
substituted its earlier decision by a fresh one while dealing with an application
·F:
stated to be for clarification. In essence and substance the High Court has re-
written the judgment which is impermissible in law.

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order and submitted
that the appellant-Corporation has not come to Court with clean hands. F
- _j_
The orders of learned Single Judge both in the writ petition and the so
called clarificatory order are clearly indefensible. As a matter of fact learned
Single Judge did not consider various pleas taken by the appellant-Corporation
regarding delayed approach and the effect of any decision taken by the
predecessor body on it. It was not explained before the High Court as to why G
the respondent filed an application before the appellant-Corporation in 1996
,-\ if it was really staking his claim on the basis of an application made earlier.
Maximum that could have been done by learned Single Judge in such a
situation was to direct the appellant-Corporation to deal with the request
made in 1996, in accordance with law. The direction given for regularization
H
\

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A is clearly unsustainable. Learned Single Judge while dealing with application
for clarification virtually substituted his earlier judgment by a fresh one.
Directions which were not given in the earlier order were incorporated in the
subsequent order which was also fmpermissible. Direction could not have
been given by learned Single Judge to regularize on the basis of the earlier
B decision of JDA without deciding the binding effect, if any of the said decision
of the appellant-Corporation.

Learned counsel for the respondent has further highlighted that the
order of the learned Single Judge has been given effect to and the challenge
to order before the Division Bench was dismissed and the Special Appeals
C were held to be not maintainable. It has also been submitted that subsequent
transactions had been entered into by the respondent with the other parties.
It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that
the action was taken in view of the strong words used by a learned Single
Judge even going to the extent of saying that the action of the Corporation
virtually amounted to contempt of Court's order. Under the threat of contempt,
D action was taken by the appellant-Corporation without prejudice to its claims
involved in the matters before the High Court and this Court.

Once the orders passed by learned Single Judge are held to be
indefensible, any consequent action to give effect to the order without prejudice
to the struid taken in the appeals before this Court can by no stretch of
E imagination be said to have been conferred any right on the respondent,
much less effecting the merits of the appeal.

The inevitable result is that orders of learned Single Judge are to be set
aside, which we direct. It is however directed that the application dated
F 27.9.1996 filed by the respondent shall be dealt with by the appellant-
Corporation in accordance with law. The amount which is stated to have
been deposited shall be adjusted against the amount, if any, fixed by the
appellant-Corporation, if it chooses to regularize the land in question. However,
if it decides not to regularize the land the amount shall be returned to the
respondent with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of deposit till the
G amount is refunded.

The appeals are disposed of. No costs.

8.8.8. Appeals disposed of.

-