The Allahabad High Court’s order, which was issued in flagrant disregard of the natural justice principle and without giving the opposing parties a chance to be heard, was overturned by the Supreme Court on Monday, March 11. Declaring the High Court’s decision to be arbitrary and perverse, the Bench made up of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta concluded that the decision was made hurriedly without providing notice to the opposing parties or affording standing counsel a chance to provide a proper response.
We are compelled to conclude that the High Court’s contested order reeks of arbitrariness and perversity after reviewing the acknowledged facts as they appear in the record. Without giving all respondents official notice, the writ petition that was filed to assert ownership to the contested tract of property was quickly taken up and granted. The required option to file a rebuttal was not even granted to the State authorities. The Judgment, written by Justice Sandeep Mehta, said that the standing counsel was granted one day to provide the factual report and was told to appear without formal notice.
Background
The Land Management Committee (LMC) of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) approved a resolution to build the school next to the highway, or on the contested property, at the villagers’ request. The proposal was then sent to the SDO. Following the SDO’s acceptance of the project, the NHAI began building the school. Resentient No. 1 filed a writ suit in the High Court, claiming that he was the rightful owner of the land where the school was built and that the LMC and SDO had no authority to reserve it for the construction of a primary school. He was upset that the SDO had approved the school’s construction.
The High Court granted the Writ Petition and ordered the NHAI to stop building a school on the disputed land, stating that respondent no. 1 owns the land in question. The appellant, who felt wronged by the High Court’s ruling, filed a petition with the Supreme Court on the grounds that the ruling was made in a hurry and went against natural justice principles by denying the appellant a chance to be heard on the writ petition.
Observation of the Supreme Court
After interpreting the appellant’s arguments and the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court’s decision was clearly unconstitutional, perverse, and violated fundamental natural justice principles.
The High Court’s order was criticized by the court because it was made in a hurry and notices were not sent to every defendant.
Even the State authorities were not given a proper opportunity to file a counterclaim; the writ petition claiming ownership on the disputed tract of land was taken up in heated haste and accepted without official notice to the respondents. Without providing official notice, the court stated that the standing counsel was instructed to appear and was given a single day to provide the factual report.
The court further censured respondent no. 1 for making false and deceptive claims in the first paragraph of his Writ petition, namely that no prior Writ petition had been filed requesting a comparable remedy.
The court noted that there was “clear taint due to concealment of material facts” in the writ petition. On the basis of the aforementioned premise, the Supreme Court annulled and set aside the ruling made by the Allahabad High Court’s Single Judge.
Advocates for the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manindra Dubey, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Mr. V.S. Dubey, Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR Case Title: SUNEETA DEVI VERSUS AVINASH AND OTHERS
