Krishi Vikas Nagar Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. State of M.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle. similarly, rule 123 of the rules mentions the safety devices to be provided while manufacturing a motor cycle. these provisions obviously are safety measures for the drivers and pillion riders and breach of such safety measures may amount to negligence but such negligence will not amount to contributory negligence on the part of the pillion rider or composite negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle, unless such negligence was partly the immediate cause of the accident or damage suffered by the pillion rider. if the damage in the accident has not been caused partly on account of violation of section 128 of the act by the pillion rider of the motor cycle, the pillion rider is not guilty of contributory negligence. similarly, if the damage suffered by the pillion rider has not been caused partly on account of violation of section 128 of the act by the driver, the pillion rider cannot put up a plea of composite negligence by the driver. in other words, if breach of section 128 of the act, does not have a causal connection with the damage caused to the pillion rider, such breach would not amount to..........the land in question, no right muchless legal right was created which could be or capable of being enforced against the respondent-state. it is this factor which being admittedly present in this case goes against the petitioner in claiming land in question as of right. when there is no legal right, then there can be no enforcement by way of issuance of writ.5. it is one thing to say that petitioner has a legal right to claim a particular land and is another thing to say that petitioner has a right to claim a suitable land. the present case falls in the later category and not the former one.6. the state has not denied the allotment of land to the petitioner. what is denied, is allotment of particular land. as observed supra, there is no arbitrariness or even unreasonableness in the action of state when it informed the petitioner that it is not possible to allot the land in question to petitioner, because the same is reserved or it is to be utilised for the gem/software park. it is a public utility cause and can not be questioned on any ground. the state being the custodian and owner of the land has every right to decide which land should be utilised for which cause and whether it.....

Judgment:

ORDER

A.M. Sapre, J.

1. By filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of letter, dated 26-10-2002 (described as Prapatra-04) whereby it is informed to the petitioner by Nazul Officer - Indore that the land in question can not be allotted to the petitioner as the same is reserved/earmarked for setting up of Indore Gem Jewellery Park and Software Park.

2. Heard Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri P.V. Bhagwat, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri Atul Shridharan, learned Government Advocate for respondents.

3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in this writ hence, it merits dismissal.

4. Even according to petitioner - a Society, there was no agreement muchless concluded one in their favour ever entered into by the respondent-State for allotment of the land in question. In other words, in the absence of any concluded agreement entered into between the parties entitling the petitioner to claim the land in question, no right muchless legal right was created which could be or capable of being enforced against the respondent-State. It is this factor which being admittedly present in this case goes against the petitioner in claiming land in question as of right. When there is no legal right, then there can be no enforcement by way of issuance of writ.

5. It is one thing to say that petitioner has a legal right to claim a particular land and is another thing to say that petitioner has a right to claim a suitable land. The present case falls in the later category and not the former one.

6. The State has not denied the allotment of land to the petitioner. What is denied, is allotment of particular land. As observed supra, there is no arbitrariness or even unreasonableness in the action of State when it informed the petitioner that it is not possible to allot the land in question to petitioner, because the same is reserved or it is to be utilised for the Gem/Software Park. It is a public utility cause and can not be questioned on any ground. The State being the custodian and owner of the land has every right to decide which land should be utilised for which cause and whether it is to be allotted to any private person for their personal use, or it be used for public cause. As observed supra, in this case, it is to be used for public cause.

7. I have already taken note of the fact that the State has not denied the allotment of land to the petitioner and hence, petitioner can not say that they will never get the land from the State for accomplishing their need.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the authority reported in AIR 1993 SC 1601 contended that this Court should invoke the principle of 'legitimate expectation' enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case and quash the impugned communication, referred supra. It was his submission that the respondents by their conduct and the correspondence allowed the petitioner to believe that the land in question is going to be allotted to them, but without issuing any show cause, the impugned communication was sent to the petitioner.

9. I do not agree to this line of submission. As in my opinion, it has no application to the facts of the case, as I have already taken note of the fact that there lies a distinction between the legal right to get a particular land and a right to claim a land from the State. There is nothing on record to indicate that any legal right muchlcss concluded right was created in favour of the petitioner by any action of the State which should be enforced against the respondents. The State never denied that they would never allot any land to the petitioner. Even according to learned Counsel for the State, an alternative land can always be made available to the petitioner depending upon the terms, conditions, availability and suitability for the cause for which the land is to be utilised by the petitioner. The decision taken by the State to utilize the land in question for a good public cause can never be questioned on any ground. Petitioner's only legitimate expectation is to insist for a land and not for a particular piece of land. This legitimate expectation is not in any way taken away from the petitioner by State for any of their action.

There is no reason and has rightly contended by learned Counsel for the State that State would ensure allotment of any suitable land as and when occasion comes, or as and when suitability occurs and terms and conditions settled.

10. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion, I find no substance in this writ petition, which fails and is dismissed. As a consequence, all interim orders, passed from time to time, are hereby vacated.