CAV Judgment

1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have approached this Court for the following reliefs :

          "A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

          [B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by quashing and setting aside the impugned sale deed dated 29/12/2008 entered into between the respondent No.3 Junagadh Agricultural Product Market Committee and the respondent No.5 M/s Venu Pipe Industries, at Annexure "A" to the petition, in the interest of justice.

          [C] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by directing the respondents No.3 and 4 to issue a fresh public notice clarifying the exact details of the immovable property which is sought to be purchased by giving a public notice in a leading newspaper, and after inviting offers in the sealed covers and after opening those offers in accordance with the Rules, and upon entering into the best possible deals which may yield maximum benefits to the Junagadh Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Junagadh, in the interest of justice.

          [D] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to initiate inquiry against the respondents No.3 and 4 for entering into the sale deed dated 29/12/2008 at Annexure "A" which is executed without following the due procedure and thereupon, to take appropriate steps against the respondents No.3 and 4 herein, in the interest of justice.

          [E] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to operation and [I] stay the execution, implementation of the impugned sale deed dated 29/12/2008, at Annexure "A" to the petition;

          [ii] to direct the respondents and mainly, the respondents No.3 and 4 and Junagadh Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Junagadh, not to make any further investments on improving, demolishing any structure or developing the land in question which is sought to be purchased as per the sale deed dated 29/12/2008, at Annexure "A" to the petition.

          [F] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further relief in favour of the petitioners, as deemed just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The grievance, in substance, of the petitioners is that the respondent No.3 - Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Junagadh (APMC), in alleged collusion with respondent No.4, the then Chairman of the APMC, Junagadh, purchased immovable property admeasuring 24,598.67 sq. yards from respondent No.2 by a registered sale deed for a total consideration of Rs. 3,78,28,000/-.

3. It is contended by the petitioners that at the time of the aforesaid transaction, several alternative parcels of land were available in the vicinity at comparatively lower prices. Despite such availability, the land belonging to respondent No.5 came to be purchased at a higher rate, thereby causing alleged detriment and financial prejudice to the APMC, Junagadh.

4. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 05.10.2009, was pleased to admit the petition and granted interim relief in terms of paragraph 11(E)(i) and (ii) of the petition.

5. Owing to the operation of the interim relief, although the subject land was purchased in the year 2008 and the entire sale consideration had been duly paid, no development or utilization of the land could take place for the benefit of the APMC, Junagadh.

6. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties were heard at length.

7. Upon consideration of the pleadings placed on record, this Court finds that the matter raises serious disputed questions of fact involving allegations of collusion and procedural irregularities in the purchase of the land. The principal grievance projected at the time of filing of the petition was that respondent No.5's land was purchased at an allegedly inflated price, despite the existence of alternative lands available at lower rates in the nearby vicinity. Be that as it may, due to the efflux of substantial time, it has emerged that even today a large parcel of land remains lying unused, adjoining the main highway. Seventeen years have elapsed since the execution of the sale deed, and the sale consideration stood fully paid to the original owner way back in the year 2008. However, owing to the pendency of the present litigation and the interim orders operating thereunder, the APMC, Junagadh has been deprived of the benefit of using and developing the land for the purposes for which it was purchased.

8. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the prayers in the petition were to be granted and the sale deed set aside by exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the resultant consequences would be financially detrimental to the APMC, Junagadh. Considering the steep and undeniable escalation in land prices over the period between 2008 and 2025, cancellation of the transaction at this stage would effectively deprive the APMC of valuable immovable property acquired at historical rates. At best, the only consequential relief would be a refund of the original consideration together with restoration of the property to respondent No.5, thereby conferring an unjust benefit upon the seller at current market rates. In the present circumstances, such a course would neither be equitable nor in the larger public interest. The Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, is required to adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach having regard to the overall facts and consequences of its decision.

9. If the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners were to be granted, the inevitable effect would be that, after a lapse of seventeen years, the land earlier alleged to have been purchased at a higher price would be reverted to the original owner, and the APMC would be compelled to acquire fresh land at prevailing market rates, thereby exposing the public body to substantial financial loss. Such an outcome would be counter-productive and operate to the serious detriment of the public exchequer.

10. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, equity, justice and public interest demand that the present litigation be brought to an end and that the APMC, Junagadh be permitted to utilize the subject land for the welfare of its members and for the benefit of the public at large, for which substantial public funds were expended as far back as in the year 2008.

11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in the larger public interest, with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated, forthwith.

12. Needless to clarify that because of the closure of this litigation, the rights and contentions of the either parties in the appropriate forum are kept intact and if any proceedings are pending, the same shall not be influenced by the present order.