| Headnote |
Land. Acquisition — Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 — Land of appellants had been compulsorily acquired, in the exercise of the State’s power of eminent domain by invoking an expropriatory legislation - Compulsory acquisition of their lands for the Indian Army for. its “Field Firing Range” — State Government was to purportedly allot developed land to the land oustees in lieu of compensation - However, plots offered to the appellants till now not developed — Procrastinated legal tussle spanning over three decades — Issue pertaining to-adequate reparation to the appellants — Held: The facts demonstrate that the State Government had taken a pre-meditated decision to allot developed land to the land oustees in lieu of compensation — As per the successive circulars including the one dated 13:12.2001, it was incumbent on the State Government to allot developed land with all the essential attributes thereof — The land had been acquired in the year 1981 and more than three decades have elapsed —.The delay cannot be attributed to the appellants — It would be indefensible and too farfetched — for the respondents to contend that the circular dated 13.12.2001 cannot be construed to be a policy reflecting the executive decision as contemplated u/Art. 166 and is not enforceable, as the subject matter thereof had not been laid before the Chief Minister u/r.31 of the Rajasthan Rules of Business u/Art.166 of the Constitution — The plea of the respondents, at this belated stage, to take refuge of ‘ unenforceability of the circular dated 13.12.2001 in isolation, — as not being a binding policy, cannot receive judicial imprimatur — The predominant facts herein, justifiably demand a fitting relief modelled by law, equity and good conscience — The value of the acquired land of the appellants, as on today, cannot be taken to be an unmistakable index to identify the developed land to be allotted to them -— In the singular facts and circumstances of the case and for the sake of complete justice, the appellants are entitied to be allotted their quota of 15% developed land in the terms of policy/circular dated 13.12.2001 in one or more available plots as enumerated by them in their affidavit dated 17.8.2015 — Respondents directed to accommodate them accordingly — Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 - Constitution of India, 1950 — Art.166 — Rajasthan Rules of Business u/Art. 166 of the Constitution — r.31. Constitution of India, 1950 — Arts.142, 14 and 217 -— Powers under Art. 142 — Nature and extent of the power — Held: The plenary powers of Supreme Court enshrined in Art.142 of the Constitution for achieving complete justice is only an insignia of empowerment so that the constitutional guarantees are not reduced to mere ritualistic incantations -— Supreme Court extra-ordinarily does exercise its power _under Article 142 as warranted in a given fact situation, for making order (s) as is felt necessary for doing complete justice in a case a matter pending before it —- There can be no straight jacket formula, for its exercise nor there can be any fetter thereto, it being plenary in nature — The invocation of this power is to reach injustice and redress the same, if it is not feasible otherwise to achieve this avowed objective — In doing so, this Court acts in its equity jurisdiction to balance the conflicting interests of the parties and advance the cause of administration of even handed justice — The purport and purpose of this power being justice oriented and guided by equitable principles, it chiefly aims at the enforcement of a _ public duty, if not forthcoming on legitimate justification ensuing in oppressive injustice, militating against the constitutional ordainment of. equality before law and equal protection of laws enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution and entrenched as are, among others, in the invaluable right to - life envisioned in Art. 21 of the Constitution. Constitution of India, 1950 —Art.166— Executive power ofthe State — Scheme of executive functioning — Conduct of business of the Government of a State — Valid executive decision in terms of the Rules of Business — Held: The essentials of Art. 166 are a valid executive decision in terms of the Rules of Business framed under clause (3), expressed in the name of Governor and authentication of the resultant orders and instruments in the manner specified in the rules to be made by the Governor— Clause (1) stipulates the mode of expression of an executive action taken in conformity therewith and clause (2) ordains the manner of authentication of the consequential orders and instruments — The enjoinment of clauses (1) and (2) of Art.166, is not mandatory so much so, that any non compliance therewith, ipso facto would render the executive action/decision, if otherwise validly taken in terms of the Rules of Business framed u/Art. 166(3), invalid — Any.decision however, to be construed as an executive decision as contemplated u/Art.166, would essentially has to be in accordance with the Rules of Business - The Rules depending upon the scheme thereof, may or may not, accord an inbuilt flexibility in its provisions in the matter of compliance — Contingent on the varying imperatives, some provisions may warrant compulsory exaction of compliance therewith — The mandatory nature of any provision of any Rule of Business would be conditioned ~ by the construction and the purpose thereof to be adjudged in the context of the scheme asa whole — The interpretation of the Rules, necessarily, would be guided by the framework thereof and the contents and purport of its provisions, and the status and tenability of an order/instrument, represented as an executive decision would have to be judged in the -conspectus of the attendant facts and circumsiances — No straight jacket formula can, thus be ordained, divorced from the Rules applicable and the factual setting accompanying the order/decision under scrutiny. Constitution of India, 1950 — Writ jurisdiction — Writ of mandamus — Features of — Held: The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is intended to supply deficiencies in law and is thus discretionary in nature -The ~ issuance of writ of mandamus pre-supposes a clear right of © the applicant and unjustifiable failure of a duty imposed on an authority otherwise obliged in law to imperatively discharge the same. Administrative Law — Administrative discretion ~ Held: Administrative discretion can never be unregulated, omnipotent and fanciful —A public authority vested with power has to essentially exercise its discretion, if conferred, conditioned by the dictates of duty as envisaged, to effectuate the exercise of the prerogative to achieve the objective therefor — The central and cardinal canon of administrative governance, enjoins a framework of controlled use of discretion coupled with duty. |
