In the case of Writ-C No. 10806 of 2019, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 filed a writ petition challenging the construction proposal for a primary school on Plot No. 821M in village Mai Kharagpur. The High Court swiftly allowed the petition, leading to the appeal against the quashed proposal by the appellant. However, the High Court’s decision raised concerns regarding lack of proper notice and representation for all parties involved in the matter.
Facts
- Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging a resolution/proposal regarding the construction of a primary school.
- The High Court allowed the writ petition without issuing notice to other respondents, declaring the resolution and approval as illegal and setting them aside.
- The Sub-Divisional Officer approved the proposal for the school’s construction, leading to NHAI initiating the construction.
- Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court regarding the same issue.
- The PIL did not mention any allocation of land to the private respondents.
- Brief facts indicate the demolition of a primary school for a National Highway alignment, with a new school proposed on a designated plot.
- The High Court swiftly allowed the writ petition quashing the proposal and approval, despite no representation from the other side.
- The respondent is now appealing the High Court’s order.
- The appellant filed this appeal against the High Court’s decision to quash the resolution and approval regarding the school construction.
- Writ-C No 10806 of 2019, filed by the petitioners challenging the proposal to construct a primary school on Plot No 821M in village Mai Kharagpur, was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
- The High Court noted that since the dispute involved landed property, it could not be adjudicated upon under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- The petitioners were advised to seek appropriate relief by filing a civil suit before the Civil Court.
- A PIL related to the same matter was also dismissed earlier by the High Court on 27 October, 2018, stating that the objections raised were an interference in public work with no public interest involved.
Also Read: Contempt of Court in Land Dispute
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the school in question has already been constructed and is operational on the disputed government land.
- It was pointed out that the respondents failed to disclose the filing of two earlier writ petitions with similar prayers while submitting the current writ petition.
- The appellant, who was an impleaded respondent in the writ petition, was never given an opportunity to be heard by the High Court as the writ petition was allowed without formal notice.
Also Read: Legal Analysis: Abetment to Suicide Case
Analysis
- The standing counsel was instructed to appear without formal notice.
- The State authorities were not given proper opportunity to file a counter.
- The writ petition claiming title on disputed land was rushed and allowed without issuing notices to all respondents.
- In the counter affidavit, it was not disputed that previous writ petitions were not disclosed.
- The High Court proceedings seemed to prevent respondents from being heard.
- The original petitioners made false statements about previous writ petitions in their filing.
- The writ petition should have been rejected with costs for concealing material facts.
- The High Court’s order was deemed arbitrary and perverse due to the concealment of crucial facts.
- No one appeared to defend the matter on behalf of the original writ petitioners
- No costs imposed on the matter due to lack of defense from the respondents
- Costs were refrained from being imposed
Also Read: Analysis of Dying Declaration in a Criminal Case
Decision
- Impugned order dated 3 July, 2019 by the Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad found to be legally flawed
- Order quashed due to patent illegality, perversity, and violation of natural justice principles
- Appeal allowed, pending applications to be disposed of
Case Title: SUNEETA DEVI Vs. AVINASH (2024 INSC 194)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003955-003955 / 2024
