Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Land lease deed without consideration set aside by Supreme Court in Gwalior Development Authority case

03 September 2024 9:53 AM

By: Admin


On 19 April 2023, Supreme Court, in case titled GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY  AND ANOTHER VS BHANU PRATAP SINGH, set aside the High Court's decision directing the Gwalior Development Authority to execute a lease deed for the remaining land without consideration. The court observed that the Authority's decision to extend undue indulgence to the bidder violates Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the respondent is given one opportunity to acquire the remaining land on priority based on the prevalent circle rate notified by the Government.

The court held that the direction was beyond jurisdiction and contrary to settled principles of law. The bench comprised Justice Rastogi and Justice Nariman, who heard the arguments and concluded the case on 13th April 2023.

A tender floated by the Gwalior Development Authority on 13th March, 1997, inviting bids for the grant of leases of different plots under the transport city scheme. Bhanu Pratap Singh was one of the bidders for the MC-2 plot area of 27887.50 sq. meters. Singh's offer of Rs.725 per sq. meter was the highest bid, and he was issued a letter of allotment on 29th September 1997. The letter stipulated that Singh had to deposit a sum of Rs.1,91,67,966/- by 31st October 1999, in addition to the earnest money of Rs.15 lakhs, in four instalments. However, Singh deposited the instalments in a piecemeal fashion, and the final instalment was deposited on 25th August 2005.

Despite the failure of Singh to deposit the instalments as per the bid document, no action was taken by the appellants either for the cancellation of the bid or for forfeiture of the amount deposited by the respondent. Finally, the lease deed was executed for 18262.89 sq. meters on 29th March 2006, and the transaction was concluded. After more than three and a half years, Singh filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a mandamus against the appellants to execute the lease deed for the remaining area of 9625.50 sq. meters.

The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed a judgment on 21st April 2011, directing the Gwalior Development Authority to execute the lease deed in favour of Singh for the remaining area without any consideration, with liability on the respondent to make payment of interest. The Authority filed an appeal against the judgment in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the transaction was concluded on execution of the lease deed for 18262.89 sq. meters on 29th March 2006, and after the instrument was registered under the law, it was not open to either party to question it in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court observed that the mandate of natural justice had no role to play in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

The court held that the direction to execute the lease deed for the remainder of the area without any consideration was completely contrary to settled principles of law and deserved to be set aside. The bench observed that the litigation had been pending for a sufficiently long time, and keeping in view the escalation in the value of the property, one opportunity should be made available to Singh for the remainder of the area on priority basis on the prevalent circle rate notified by the Government.

GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY  AND ANOTHER VS BHANU PRATAP SINGH

Latest Legal News