Government can not give away land at its sweet will in arbitrary manner, held Supreme Court

A bench of Supreme court of India comprising Justices M.Y.Eqbal and P.C.Ghosh in its judgment dated 26th September 2014 in the case of ‘CIDCO vs Platinum Entertainment’ Civil Appeal no. 9264/2014 upheld the CIDCO’s action  of cancelling the land allotted to the respondents allottees by undue favour at the instance of the Minister.

The court held “State and its agencies and instrumentalities cannot give  largesse  to any person at sweet will and whims of the political entities or officers  of the State.  However, decisions and action of the State must be founded on  a sound, transparent and well defined policy which shall be made known to  the public.  The disposal of Government land by adopting  a  discriminatory  and arbitrary method shall always be avoided and it should be  done  in  a  fair and equitable manner as the allotment on favoritism or  nepotism  influences the exercises of discretion.  Even assuming that if the Rule  or  Regulation prescribes the mode of allotment by entertaining individual  application  or by tenders or competitive bidding, the Rule of Law requires publicity to  be given before such allotment is made”.

The court further observed “we  observe,  that  notwithstanding Regulation 4, as contained in the Regulations, the appellant CIDCO may  take all endeavour to make allotments of plots by open tender or  competing  bids and shall not take any decision for allotment  of  Government  land  at  the instance of the Ministers and High Dignitaries for any purposes whatsoever”.

Click below for the Full Judgment.

Full Judgment

Supreme Court comes to the rescue of person against whom false case of cheque dishonor was filed

Ramdass vs  Krishnanand   Criminal Appeal No.1522/2014

Facts of the case are that the cheque of Rs.5 lakh issued by the appellant Ramdass in favour of respondent was dishonored as the appellant instructed the bank to stop the payment. The respondent filed criminal case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the appellant. The complainant/respondent set up the case that he had given hand loan of Rs.1.75 lakh to the appellant and that to discharge said liability, the appellant had issued the cheque of Rs.5 lakh.  The case of the appellant, on the other hand, was that he had entered into an agreement with the complainant to purchase 3 acres of land belonging to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and for that purpose, an advance of Rs.30,000/- in cash was paid and the Cheque in question for Rs.5,00,000/- was handed over to the complainant in presence of B.S. Pai (DW 2) and that when the complainant failed to execute the sale agreement and not even willing to return the advance amount of Rs.30,000/- and the Cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-, he had to instruct the Bank to stop payment against the said Cheque.

The Magistrate Court took note of the financial condition of the complainant and found his version to be false on the evidence led before him and dismissed the complaint and acquitted the appellant of the offence.

The complainant filed appeal in the High Court. The High Court while allowing the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and sentenced the appellant-accused to pay a fine of Rs.8,50,000/- within a period of eight weeks, failing which, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Aggrieved by the reversal of his acquittal, the appellant appealed to Supreme Court of India. The appellant deposited Rs.1,75,000/- in the trial court in accordance with the Supreme court’s order initially. However, vide final judgment dated 23^rd July 2014, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the  judgment of High court and restored the judgment of trial court acquitting the appellant. The Court observed that it can not be believed that the complainant had raised loan of Rs.1,75,000/- only to give hand loan to his employer/appellant. The court observed that it is not trustworthy that complainant was in a position to extend hand loan of such a big amount to the appellant particularly when the complainant himself admitted that his net savings in a year came to Rs.10,000/- per year and he was working as lorry driver with appellant who used to deal in sale purchase of properties. The supreme court permitted appellant to withdraw Rs.1,75,000/- which were earlier deposited by the appellant in the trial court in pursuance to Supreme Court’s initial order.

Read the full Judgment.

Sunil Goel advocate B.Sc. L.Lb L.Lm