Supreme Court Upholds Land Resumption for Public Purpose: V. Krishnamurthy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2019)

Date of the Judgment: March 26, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 278

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a State government take back land it had previously allotted to a society? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the State of Tamil Nadu and an Agricultural Horticultural Society. The core issue was whether the State’s decision to resume land, initially allotted to the Society, was legally valid. The Supreme Court bench, composed of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, delivered a unanimous judgment upholding the State’s right to resume the land for public purposes.

Case Background

The Agricultural Horticultural Society (the Society) was allotted land by the State of Tamil Nadu on April 28, 1980, under certain terms and conditions. On August 5, 1989, the State government issued an order (GO Ms. No. 1259) to resume the land. The stated reason for the resumption was to develop sports facilities and promote horticulture and horticultural research, which the government classified as a public purpose. The Society, feeling aggrieved by this order, challenged it by filing two writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Society initially challenged the resumption order in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the Society on June 19, 1998, quashing the resumption order. The State then filed writ appeals before a Division Bench of the same High Court. Initially, these appeals were withdrawn but later restored. The Division Bench, on April 11, 2008, overturned the Single Judge’s decision, allowing the State’s appeals and upholding the resumption order. This led the Society to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal framework in this case revolves around clause 4 of the allotment order, which granted the State the power to resume the land under two conditions: violation of the terms of the allotment by the Society or if the land was required for public purposes. The State argued that the resumption was for a public purpose, specifically the development of sports facilities and horticulture research. The Supreme Court noted that the land belonged to the State and that the State had the right to resume it for public purposes as per the terms of the allotment order.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants (Society):

• The primary argument of the Society was that the resumption order was issued with mala fide intentions due to political rivalry. The Society claimed that since they were members of the opposition party, the ruling party had issued the resumption order to target them.
• The Society argued that the State’s action was not genuinely for public purpose but was motivated by political vendetta.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Tamil Nadu):

• The State argued that the land belonged to them and that clause 4 of the allotment order empowered them to resume the land for public purposes.
• The State contended that the resumption was indeed for a public purpose, namely the development of sports facilities and horticulture research.
• The State refuted the allegations of mala fides, stating that the resumption was a legitimate exercise of their power under the allotment order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in allowing the appeals and upholding the resumption order dated 05.08.1989 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

• Clause 4 of the allotment order, which empowered the State to resume the land if the Society violated the terms of the allotment or if the land was required for a public purpose.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Clause 4 of the allotment order: The Court relied on this clause to justify the State’s action, stating that it clearly empowered the State to resume the land for public purposes.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The fact that the land belonged to the State.
• The existence of clause 4 in the allotment order, which explicitly allowed the State to resume the land for public purposes.
• The lack of substantial evidence to support the allegation of mala fides against the State.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the Society’s argument of mala fides, stating that mere allegations without substantial evidence were insufficient. The Court emphasized that the State had exercised its right to resume the land for a valid public purpose as per the terms of the allotment order. The Court quoted, “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.” The Court further added, “Such averments by itself do not constitute a plea of mala fides without there being any substantial material in its support.” The Supreme Court concluded by stating, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• The State has the right to resume land allotted to societies or individuals if it is required for a public purpose, provided there is a clause in the allotment order permitting such resumption.
• Mere allegations of mala fides without substantial evidence will not suffice to challenge a resumption order.
• The State must ensure that the resumed land is used only for the stated public purpose.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the State must ensure that the land in question is used only for the stated public purpose and not for any other purpose.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State can exercise its right to resume land for public purposes as per the terms of the allotment order, and mere allegations of mala fides without substantial evidence will not invalidate such an order. This case reinforces the State’s power to resume land for public purposes when explicitly provided for in the allotment agreement.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Agricultural Horticultural Society, upholding the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court found no merit in the Society’s plea of mala fides and affirmed the State’s right to resume the land for public purposes, as per clause 4 of the allotment order. The judgment reinforces the State’s power to resume land for public use when such a right is reserved in the allotment agreement.