The Gujarat High Court has observed that when a larger public interest is involved, technicalities will have to make way for substantial justice and on that ground petition cannot be nipped at the bud nor the petition can be thrown out on that ground namely on the ground of locus particularly when petitioners without any malice or attempting to espouse public cause.

The Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri dismissed a Public Interest litigation (PIL) filed by one News Reporters and a RTI Activist seeking quashing of the order passed by state of Gujarat (Respondent No.1) and Collector , Rajkot (Respondent No. 2) respectively , allotting 51 Acres of land to Private Respondent.

It is the allotment which has been assailed in the PIL by the petitioners contending inter alia that said land is in the vicinity of the town and it has the potential of non-agricultural land and same could not have been allotted.

Having heard the advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records , the Court noted that land in question was allotted in favour of Private Respondents which were pending before the appropriate Government.

It is an undisputed fact that erstwhile rulers of Saurasthra State namely late Sri Ghanshyamsinhji and his three brothers were owning and possessing around 2600 Acres of land on the advent of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 and by virtue of said Act coming into force, lands owned by them stood vested with the State and the Act itself provided for erstwhile owners of the land being allotted alternate land.

Hence, it resulted in an application being submitted by them for allotment of land which undisputedly received the attention of the appropriate Government at the relevant point of time resulting in allotment of lands.

However, possession of said lands could not be given for reasons already noticed hereinabove. It is in this background the wife of Ghanshyamsinhji had approached the High Court for a direction to consider her claim for allotment of the land.

On Special Civil Application having been dismissed, it resulted in the said case landing before the coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal wherein appellant wife of Ghanshyamsinhji was granted liberty to submit a detailed representation to the State Government within a period of one month from the date of order and directed the State Government to consider said representation by passing a reasoned order and said exercise was ordered to be undertaken within a period of four months. Hence, the said representation came to be considered and impugned orders of allotment of land came to be passed.

As such, the High Court observed that it cannot be gain said by the petitioners or any other person espousing the public cause to contend before the High Court that claim of the erstwhile owners of land who had lost their land by virtue of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, were not being entitled to be allotted alternate land. It is under the provisions of the said Act the applications were submitted, prosecuted by the legal heirs of the applicants right from the year 1952 onwards till allotment which intermittently had also resulted in orders of allotment of land being passed by allotting lands in different village which did not get fructified on the ground of possession having not been delivered.

Hence, the claim of the allottees cannot be held to be shallow or without any basis. On the other hand, by virtue of statutory right which flowed to them from Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951, it had resulted in their submission of applications for allotment of land and it resulted in appropriate Government allotting the lands including the subject land under the impugned orders.

In that view of the matter, it has to be necessarily held that claim of the allottees was genuine and by virtue of a right which accrued to them under the Act, they had sought for allotment.

That apart, the Court noted that the land was allotted to them in the year 2017 i.e. on 11.10.2017. Neither the provisions of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 or any other extant government resolution prohibits or restricts the allottees from alienating the said land.

The said land came to be sold by the allottees under a registered Sale Deed in favour of Private Respondents and others on 26.04.2018 resulting in the purchasers of the land seeking for conversion of the same from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes.

Further the Court noted that it is no doubt true that under Section 20, said land was allotted for agricultural purposes. However, there is no restriction placed under the Act, at the cost of repetition, there being no such embargo placed under the Act restricting the right of allottees to sell the land, the allottees have sold the lands resulting in the subsequent purchasers seeking for conversion of the same to nonagricultural purpose. Based on the said application which was said to have been opposed by certain residents of the village (not petitioners), it resulted in an order dated 26.11.2018 being passed.

Undisputedly, the Court observed that said order passed by the appropriate authority converting the subject land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose (general industrial purpose) has not been challenged in the petition. “Be that as it may. The fact remains that the order dated 11.10.2017 which is an order of allotment of land in favour of the allottees has been challenged after a period of four years.

Delay defeats equity is the basic principle on which this Court exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be loath to exercise the said jurisdiction. Delay and latches will have to be necessarily explained. It is no doubt true that the constitutional Courts are not under any fetter in appropriate circumstances to ignore the delay when substantial justice is at peril.”

In the instant case, the Bench do not see any such extraordinary circumstances which perforces the Court to exercise the jurisdiction particularly when there is no illegally committed by the governmental agencies in allotment of land as already observed by us hereinabove. In fact, the authorities who exercised the power to grant permission to nonagricultural purpose have also taken note of the order passed by the coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal or in other words revenue authorities have not passed the order of conversion blindly or they are not being aware of the order passed by the coordinate Bench.

“Sufficient safeguards have been provided under the said order and specifically it has been held or ordered that prior to usage of subject land to non-agricultural purposes, the holder of the plot should obtain approval/permission from the appropriate authority. Thus, sufficient safeguards have also been taken by the appropriate Government and for this reason also, it has to be necessarily held that on the ground of delay and latches, petition is liable to be dismissed”, the order reads.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday transferred to another bench, a petition filed by a life term convict seeking direction to the government for ensuring Covid-19 vaccination for jail staff, security persons, and all prisoners lodged in the jails of the capital.

A single-judge High Court bench presided over by Justice Anu Malhotra transferred the matter to the division bench headed by Chief Justice D.N. Patel after noting that the matter is in “public interest”.

The bench was also informed by the public prosecutor that a similar matter regarding the vaccination of prisoners is also pending before the concerned division bench. Sharda Jain, a woman life convict aged 63 years and having undergone about 13 years and 11 months, approached the court seeking vaccination of jail staff, jail security personnel and the prisoners, especially those who are out on bail.

“Delhi jails are overcrowded by 80% and having capacity to retain 10,026 prisoners and at present about 18,000 prisoners are lodged in Delhi (including 4,000 prisoners who were released on interim bail/emergency parole),” the plea filed through Advocate Amit Sahni said.

“It is, therefore, clear that social distancing cannot be maintained in Delhi jails due to overcrowding and situation may worsen in Tihar Jails in case all prisoners surrender,” the plea said further. 

The plea further states that the prisoners lodged in jails always hope and pray to lead a normal, health and peaceful life after undergoing sentence awarded by the Court. “The state has an obligation to preserve life whether he is an innocent person or criminal liable to punishment under the law. With specific reference to health, the right to conditions, adequate for the health and well-being of all was already recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR) furthermore states that the prisoners have a right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,” the petition said.

Read Also: Delhi court acquits Priya Ramani in criminal defamation case by MJ Akbar, says Akbar’s case not true

The Delhi High Court on Thursday disposed of a public interest litigation in connection with the farmers protest along the Delhi borders, seeking directions for setting up medical camps for the protesters.

A divisional bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan noted there is a jurisdictional issue in the petition asking “where are they protesting? Outside Delhi”. The petition, filed by Ashish through Advocate Rohit Jha, sought directions for medical facilities along with Covid-19 testing camps.

The bench stated that “You can file it in Punjab, Haryana, Allahabad this petition will do.” The bench finally disposed of the petition allowing liberty to file another plea after required averments.

Also Read: Supreme Court upholds Allahabad High Court order quashing Dr Kafeel Khan’s detention

Jha told India Legal,

“After looking at the order, our team will decide what changes are required in the petition and will file the fresh petition afterwards.”