V. KRISHNAMURTHY & ANR.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

1042               SUPREME[2019]
                           COURT   REPORTS
                                 2 S.C.R. 1042             [2019] 2 S.C.R.


 A                      V. KRISHNAMURTHY & ANR.
                                        v.
                       STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
                   (CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7703-7704 OF 2009)
 B                          MARCH 26, 2019
                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
                       DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
             Land laws:
             Resumption of allotted land – Respondent-State allotted a land
 C
       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 appellant-
       Society on the ground of mala fides – According to the appellants,
       since they were the members of the opposition party, the party in
 D     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
 E
       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
 F     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
 G     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
 H     it is only based on the averment that since the appellant happened
                                       1042
  V. KRISHNAMURTHY & ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                               1043


to be a member of the opposition party, the party in power at that             A
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,
                                                                               B
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]                                                       C
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7703-
7704 of 2009.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2008 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WA Nos. 1030 and 1031 of 1998
                                                                               D
      Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Anil Kumar Mishra-I, Pranjal Kishore,
Ankit Dhawan and Sahithya Kishno, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Balaji Srinivasa, AAG, Ms. Purbitaa Mitra, K. V. Vijaya Kumar
and B. Balaji, Advs., for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               E
      ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
       1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order
dated 11.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
W.A. Nos.1030 & 1031 of 1998 whereby the Division Bench of the
                                                                               F
High Court allowed the appeals filed by the respondent-State and set
aside the order dated 19.06.1998 of the Single Judge in W.P. Nos.11058
& 11059/1989.
        2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals,
it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts infra.
                                                                               G
      3. The appellants herein are the writ petitioners and the
respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petitions out of which
these appeals arise.
      4. The Agricultural Horticultural Society(Society) is the appellant
in C.A. No.7704/2009 which is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies        H
1044                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 2 S.C.R.


 A     Registration Act, 1975 whereas the appellant in C.A. No.7703 of 2009
       is its Secretary. The State of Tamil Nadu-respondent No.1 herein had
       allotted the land in question to the appellant-Society on certain terms and
       conditions by agreement dated 28.04.1980.
              5. By order dated 05.08.1989 (GO Ms. No.1259), the respondent-
 B     State resumed the land in question in terms of clause 4 of the allotment
       order for public purpose, namely, development of sports facilities without
       affecting the environment and development of horticulture and horticulture
       research.
             6. The appellant-Society felt aggrieved by the said order and filed
 C     two Writ Petitions (Nos.11058 and 11059 of 1989) in the Madras High
       Court. The challenge to the order was essentially based on the plea of
       mala fides. The Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated
       19.06.1998, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the resumption order
       dated 05.08.1989.
 D            7. The respondent-State felt aggrieved and filed two writ appeals
       (Nos.1030 & 1031/1998) before the Division Bench of the High Court.
       Earlier, the writ appeals were withdrawn but later on they were restored
       to their files on an application made by the State in that behalf for their
       disposal according to law.

 E             8. By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeals
       and while setting aside the order passed by the Single Judge dismissed
       the writ petitions giving rise to filing of these appeals by the writ petitioners
       in this Court.
              9. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in these
 F     appeals, is whether the Division Bench was justified in allowing the
       appeals and, in consequence, was justified in upholding the resumption
       order dated 05.08.1989 of the respondent-State in relation to the land in
       question.
              10. Heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel for the
       appellants and Mr. Balaji Srinivasa, learned AAG for the respondent-
 G
       State.
              11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
       of the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals.


 H
  V. KRISHNAMURTHY & ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                                   1045
            [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       12. As mentioned above, the appellants (writ petitioners) had               A
impugned the resumption order dated 05.08.1989 essentially on the plea
based on mala fides. This plea of mala fides was based on political
rivalry. According to the appellants, since they were the members of the
opposition party, the party in power at that time issued the impugned
resumption order.
                                                                                   B
       13. This plea found favour to the writ court (Single Judge) but the
Division Bench reversed the view of the Single Judge and dismissed the
writ petitions. In the other words, the Division Bench held that a plea of
mala fides raised by the appellants (writ petitioners) to impugn the action
was not factually and legally sustainable.
                                                                                   C
       14. In this Court also, the learned counsel for the appellants (writ
petitioners) reiterated the same plea of mala fides for assailing the
resumption notice dated 05.08.1989 but we find no merit therein for the
following reasons:
        15. First, admittedly the land in question belongs to the State;           D
Second, clause 4 of the allotment order empowers 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 is entitled to exercise their right of resumption of the land; and
Third, the State admittedly exercised the right of resumption of the land
for a public purpose.                                                              E

       16. A plea of mala fides, in our view, has no factual and legal
foundation to sustain because we find that 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 do not constitute a plea           F
of mala fides without there being any substantial material in its support.
In our view, 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. We concur            G
with the view taken by the Division Bench calling for no interference.
Needless to observe, the State will ensure that the land in question would
only be used for the public purpose and not for other purposes.


                                                                                   H
1046                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2019] 2 S.C.R.


 A            17. Learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out from
       the impugned order that the Division Bench has made some disparaging
       remarks against them at some places in the impugned order. In our view,
       those remarks were irrelevant for deciding the short controversy involved
       in the case.
 B           18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals fail and are
       accordingly dismissed.

       Devika Gujral                                             Appeals dismissed.



 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H