Case title – Suneeta Devi VS Avinash and others
Case no. – Civil Appeal No(s). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 20422 of 2019)
Decision on – March 11, 2024
Quoram – Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts of the case
A primary school situated in a village was found to be falling on the proposed alignment of the National Highway and the same was demolished by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the construction of the highway. The villagers requested the NHAI to construct new primary school in the village which was accepted by it. The Land Management Committee issued a proposal identifying and providing a plot of land in the village for the construction of the new school and forwarded the same for approval to the State authorities.
The proposal was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and NHAI started construction of the school. In order to challenge the same, two persons (respondents) filed a writ petition before the High Court portraying it to be a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The PIL was dismissed by the Division Bench.
The respondents subsequently preferred pleas against the legality of the resolution/proposal. The High Court held the proposals to be illegal. The Respondents before the High Court, aggrieved by its decision, appealed before the Apex Court. A stay was granted by the Supreme Court on the operation of the impugned order.
Submissions of the parties
The respondents filed counter affidavit in the matter, but however, no one appeared to contest the matter when it was called upon for hearing.
The Learned counsel representing the appellant submitted that the school in question has already been constructed and is operational on the disputed plot of a government land. Furthermore, the appellant being the impleaded respondent in the writ petition was never heard by the High Court as the writ petition was allowed without issuing any formal notice.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The bench observed that the writ petition filed claiming title on the disputed plot of land was taken up in hot haste by the High Court and was allowed without issuing formal notice to all the respondents. Even the State authorities were not given proper opportunity of filing a counter. Further, the standing counsel was instructed to appear without any formal notice being issued and was given a single day’s opportunity to present the factual report.
The Court opined that the writ petition deserved rejection with exemplary costs because the factum of filing of previous two writ petitions was concealed by the respondents. It further noted that the petition was manifestly tainted on account of concealment of material facts. The Court, therefore, held that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, perversity, and was passed in sheer violation of principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the High Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
