Mandir Tirath Parashar Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
property - exemption from surplus land - punjab' security of land tenures act, 1953 and section 5-a of haryana ceiling of land holdings act, 1972 - petitioner claims to be religious and charitable organization on basis of temples situated in its complex - mahant passed away - as there was no clear successor to mahant, civil litigation ensued between claimants for the office of mahant - during course of this litigation act, 1953 came into force and land of petitioner declared as surplus, which was reviewed and declaring 10-1/2 units as surplus - in these proceedings, petitioner was represented by y - meanwhile, act, 1972 came into force - petitioner, through y filed petition praying for exemption from provisions of act, 1972 in accordance with section 5-a thereof - petition disposed of on statement of deputy advocate general that matter regarding exemption, under section 5(a) of act, 1972 would be decided on merits - petitioner, again through y filed application under section 5(a) of act, 1972 praying for exemption from operation of act, 1972 - application dismissed - petitioner filed appeal - appeal dismissed - mutation sanctioned reflecting state government as owner of land, declared surplus - petitioner, through y filed petition impugning sanction of mutation, as also surplus area proceedings - petition dismissed as withdrawn to enable petitioner to approach appropriate authorities - meanwhile, y passed away and a had already been appointed mahant - petitioner, through a filed application praying for exemption of surplus area and for setting aside mutation - however, application was dismissed - petitioner, through a filed appeal before collector - appeal dismissed - petitioner, through a filed revisions before commissioner and financial commissioner - both revisions dismissed respectively - hence, present writ petition - held, petitioner seeks to impugn order whereby land, belonging to petitioner, was declared surplus under act, 1953 - challenge to aforementioned orders is no longer available to petitioner, as with coming into force of act, 1972 and land, declared surplus, under punjab act, 1953 and vests automatically in state - challenge to orders whereby land, belonging to petitioner, was declared surplus, is also pressed on plea that petitioner was not properly represented before collector, as y who appeared on behalf of petitioner, was neither mahant nor person authorised to represent petitioner - y began to represent petitioner since 30 years - during this period, his authority to represent petitioner was not challenged by any person - it is not believable that for said period petitioner remained without mahant - no evidence placed before court to hold that y did not represent petitioner - authorities rightly declined relief on second application, on same cause of action and for same relief - hence, writ petition dismissed - administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - the collector agrarian, while declaring surplus area, failed in the discharge of his obligation to ensure that the petitioner, was represented by a duly appointed mahant or a daily authorised individual. failure on the part of the collector to ensure proper representation on behalf of the petitioner, renders the orders, passed in the years 1962 and 1963, declaring the petitioner's land surplus, non est.rajive bhalla, j. 1. the petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, filed under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india, prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 30.10.1962 (annexure p-3), 25.2.1963 (annexure p-3a), 8.4.1991 (annexure p-4), 12.10.1993 (annexure p-5), 5.9.2002 (annexure p-10), 14.11.2002 (annexure p-12), 18.12.2003 (annexure p-14) and 20.12.2004 (annexure p-16).2. the facts, as pleaded, are briefly enumerated herein after. the petitioner claims to be a religious and charitable organisation, on the basis of its history and the nature of the temples housed in its complex. mahant shankar gir passed away in january 1951. as there was no clear successor to the mahant, civil litigation ensued between claimants, to the office of mahant. during the course of this litigation, the punjab' security of land tenures act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the punjab act') came into force and the collector agrarian, vide order dated 30.10.1962 (annexure p-3), declared 106 standard acres 10-1/2 units as surplus, which was reviewed, vide an order dated 25.2.1963 (annexure p-3/a), declaring 107 standard acres 10-1/2 units as surplus. in these proceedings, the petitioner was represented by one hardwar gir. meanwhile, the haryana ceiling of land holdings act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the haryana act') came into force.3. the petitioner, through hardwar gir, filed c.w.p. no. 4424 of 1985, praying for exemption from the provisions of the haryana act, in accordance with section 5-a thereof. the said writ petition was disposed of, vide order dated 1.5.1986, on the statement of the deputy advocate general, haryana that the matter regarding exemption, under section 5-a of the haryana act, would be decided on merits.4. on 15.5.1986, the petitioner, again through, hardwar gir, filed an application under section 5-a of the haryana act, praying for exemption from the operation of the haryana act. vide order dated 8.4.1991 (annexure p-4). the application was dismissed. the appeal, filed against the said order, was dismissed on 12.10.1993 (annexure p-5).5. on 16.1.1995, a mutation was sanctioned, reflecting the state of haryana, as the owner of land, declared surplus in 1963. the petitioner, through bir gir, filed c.w.p. no. 1428 of 1999, impugning the sanction of mutation, as also the surplus area proceedings. the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 25.7.2000, to enable the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities. meanwhile, hardwar gir and bir gir, passed away on 14.11.1996 and 18.9.2002 respectively and as averred, bhalle gir had already been appointed mahant on 24.6.1994.6. on 4.2.2002, the petitioner, through bhalle gir, filed an application praying for exemption of the surplus area, in terms of section 5-a of the haryana act and for setting aside the mutation, dated 16.1.1995, passed in favour of the haryana state on the basis of surplus area, declared in 1963. however, this application was dismissed by the prescribed authority-cum-sdo civil, karnal on 5.9.2002 (annexure p-10). an appeal filed before the collector, karnal, was dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2002 (annexure p-12). the revisions,- filed before the commissioner, rohtak division, rohtak and the financial commissioner, haryana were dismissed, vide orders dated 18.12.2003 (annexure p-14) and 20.12.2004 (annexure p-16) respectively.7. counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders, declaring land belonging to the petitioner, surplus, in the years 1962 and 1963, are liable to be set aside, as the petitioner was represented before the collector, by one hardwar gir, who was neither the mahant nor a person duly authorised to represent the petitioner-institution. the collector agrarian, while declaring surplus area, failed in the discharge of his obligation to ensure that the petitioner, was represented by a duly appointed mahant or a daily authorised individual. failure on the part of the collector to ensure proper representation on behalf of the petitioner, renders the orders, passed in the years 1962 and 1963, declaring the petitioner's land surplus, non est.8. counsel for the petitioner states that exemption, under section 5-a of the haryana act from the operation of the haryana act, has been declined, primarily on the ground that a similar application for exemption, filed on behalf of the petitioner, had been dismissed, pursuant to the order dated 8.4.1991 (annexure p-4). a second application, on behalf of the petitioner, praying for the same relief, was not maintainable. it is contended that dismissal of the earlier application, vide order dated 8.4.1991 (annexure p-4) would not bind the petitioner, as hardwar gir, who filed the earlier application, was neither the mahant nor a person, duly authorised to represent the petitioner-institution. hardwar gir had no authority to represent the petitioner-institution and, therefore, the second application for exemption, under section 5-a of the haryana act, was wrongly dismissed. it is further contended that as the petitioner-institution fulfills all the requirements, prescribed in section 5-a of the haryana act, for grant of exemption to religious and charitable institutions, the respondents were not justified in declining exemption to the petitioner.9. we have heard counsel, for the petitioner, perused the paper book, as also the impugned orders and express our inability to accept the contentions, put-forth by counsel for the petitioner.10. before we proceed to examine the contentions, raised by the petitioner, it would be necessary to notice that the petitioner seeks to impugn, apart from others, orders dated 30.10.1962 and 25.2.1963 (annexures p-3 and p-3a), whereby land, belonging to the petitioner, was declared surplus under the punjab act. challenge to the aforementioned orders is no longer available to the petitioner, as with the coming into force of the haryana act and pursuant to enactment of section 12(3) thereof, land, declared surplus, under the punjab act, vests automatically in the state. the land having vested in the state government, the petitioner cannot be permitted to set the clock back and seek to undo what has been statutorily achieved. the surplus area, declared under the punjab act, cannot be re-opened, as has been settled by the hon'ble supreme court in smt. bagwanti devi and anr. v. state of haryana and anr. (1994-2)107 p.l.r. 423 (s.c.) : 1994 p.l.j. 245 and sampuran singh v. the state of haryana and ors., (1994-2)107 p.l.r. 470 (s.c.).11. challenge to the orders dated 30.10.1962 (annexure p-3) and 25.2.1963 (annexure p-3 a), whereby land, belonging to the petitioner, was declared surplus, is also pressed on the plea that the petitioner was not properly represented before the collector, as hardwar gir, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, was neither the mahant nor a person authorised to represent the petitioner. the petitioner, being a religious and charitable institution, incapable of acting on its own, and to be proceeded against, through a duly appointed mahant or a person duly authorised to represent it.12. the aforementioned, plea, in our opinion, is not sustainable. it appears to be an after-thought, raised after the demise of hardwar gir and bir gir. the petitioner was represented by hardwar gir, before the collector agrarian, when land belonging to the petitioner-institution was declared surplus. as noticed in the narrative of facts, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this court through hardwar gir. hardwar gir began to represent the petitioner-institution in the year 1963 and continued to do so till 1993. during this period, his authority to represent the petitioner-institution was not challenged by any person whatsoever. it is not believable that for a period of 40 years, the petitioner-institution remained without a mahant or a person duly authorised to represent it. silence, on the part of the petitioner, for a period of 40 years, as to the authority of hardwar gir to represent its interest, raises a serious doubt as to the veracity of this plea. admittedly, after the nineteen fifties, no litigation ensued regarding the office of the mahant. during his life time, no one raised any dispute as to his authority to represent the petitioner-institution. in our opinion, the present plea appears to be a mala fide attempt to take advantage of the demise of hardwar gir. no evidence, whatsoever, has been placed before us that would enable us to hold that hardwar gir did not represent the petitioner-institution.13. the orders, declining the relief of exemption from the operation of the haryana act, are impugned on the ground that the earlier order dated 8.4.1991 (annexure p-4), confirmed in appeal, vide order dated 12.10.1993 (annexure p-5), which have been relied upon by the authorities, were not binding upon the petitioner, as the application was filed by hardwar gir, who was neither a mahant nor a person duly authorised to represent the petitioner. as we have already negatived this plea in the context of the challenge to the orders of surplus area, nothing further need be said except that as the earlier application for exemption stood, rejected, the authorities rightly declined relief on a second application, on the same cause of action and for the same relief. the authorities, under the haryana act, rightly declined to entertain the second application for exemption, the first application having culminated in the orders dated 8.4.1991 (annexure p-4) and 12.10.1993 (annexure p-5), the matter could not be re-opened and re-agitated.in view of what has been stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality and impropriety that may call for interference by this court, in the exercise of jurisdiction, under article 226 of the constitution of india. consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine with nor order as to costs.