No mala fides - Resume order of land is correct - This plea of mala fides was based on political rivalry. = First, admittedly the land in question belongs to the State; Second, clause 4 of the allotment order empowers the State to resume the land either in the event of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the allotment order by the appellant or if it is required for public purpose, the State is entitled to exercise their right of resumption of the land; and Third, the State admittedly exercised the right of resumption of the land for a public purpose.A plea of mala fides, in our view, has no factual and legal foundation to sustain because we find that it is only based on the averment that since the appellant happened to be a member of the opposition party, the party in power at that time had taken the impugned action to resume the land against them. Such averments by itself do not constitute a plea of mala fides without there being any substantial material in its support. In our view, the appellants having failed to point out any legal infirmity in the resumption order except to take the plea based on mala fides, the Division Bench was right in upholding the resumption order as being legal and in conformity with clause 4 of the allotment order.

     REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7703­7704 OF 2009
V. Krishnamurthy & Anr.              ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.           …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   final
judgment and order dated 11.04.2008 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos.1030
& 1031 of 1998 whereby the Division Bench of the
High   Court   allowed   the   appeals   filed   by   the
respondent­State   and   set   aside   the   order   dated
19.06.1998 of the Single Judge in W.P. Nos.11058 &
11059/1989.
1
2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in
these appeals, it is necessary to set out a few relevant
facts infra.
3. The appellants herein are the writ petitioners and
the respondents herein are the respondents in the writ
petitions out of which these appeals arise.
4. The Agricultural Horticultural Society(Society) is
the   appellant   in   C.A.   No.7704/2009   which   is
registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration
Act, 1975 whereas the appellant in C.A. No.7703 of
2009   is   its   Secretary.     The   State   of   Tamil   Nadurespondent   No.1   herein   had   allotted   the   land   in
question to the appellant­Society on certain terms and
conditions by agreement dated 28.04.1980.
5. By  order  dated   05.08.1989  (GO   Ms.  No.1259),
the respondent­State resumed the land in question in
terms of clause 4 of the allotment order for public
purpose,   namely,   development   of   sports   facilities
2
without affecting the environment and development of
horticulture and horticulture research.
6. The appellant­Society felt aggrieved by the said
order   and   filed   two   Writ   Petitions   (Nos.11058   and
11059   of   1989)   in   the   Madras   High   Court.   The
challenge to the order was essentially based on the
plea of mala fides. The Single Judge of the High Court,
by order dated 19.06.1998, allowed the writ petitions
and quashed the resumption order dated 05.08.1989.
7. The respondent­State felt aggrieved and filed two
writ   appeals   (Nos.1030   &   1031/1998)   before   the
Division Bench of the High Court.   Earlier, the writ
appeals   were   withdrawn   but   later   on   they   were
restored to their files on an application made by the
State in that behalf for their disposal according to law.
8. By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed
the   writ   appeals   and   while   setting   aside   the   order
passed   by   the   Single   Judge   dismissed   the   writ
3
petitions giving rise to filing of these appeals by the
writ petitioners in this Court.
9. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in these appeals, is whether the Division
Bench was justified in allowing the appeals and, in
consequence,   was   justified   in   upholding   the
resumption order dated 05.08.1989 of the respondentState in relation to the land in question.
10. Heard   Mr.   Sanjay   R.   Hegde,   learned   senior
counsel for the appellants and Mr. Balaji Srinivasa,
learned AAG for the respondent­State.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no
merit in these appeals.
12. As   mentioned   above,   the   appellants   (writ
petitioners) had impugned the resumption order dated
05.08.1989   essentially   on   the   plea   based   on  mala
fides. This plea of  mala fides  was based on political
rivalry. According to the appellants, since they were
4
the   members   of   the   opposition   party,   the   party   in
power at that time issued the impugned resumption
order.
13. This plea found favour to the writ court (Single
Judge) but the Division Bench reversed the view of the
Single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions.  In the
other words, the Division Bench held that a plea of
mala fides raised by the appellants (writ petitioners) to
impugn   the   action   was   not   factually   and   legally
sustainable. 
14. In this Court also, the learned counsel for the
appellants (writ petitioners) reiterated the same plea of
mala fides  for assailing the resumption notice dated
05.08.1989   but   we   find   no   merit   therein   for   the
following reasons:
15. First, admittedly the land in question belongs to
the   State;   Second,   clause   4   of   the   allotment   order
empowers the State to resume the land either in the
event of  violation of any of the terms and conditions of
5
the allotment order by the appellant or if it is required
for public purpose, the State is entitled to exercise
their right of resumption of the land; and Third, the
State admittedly exercised the right of resumption of
the land for a public purpose.
16. A plea of mala fides, in our view, has no factual
and legal foundation to sustain because we find that it
is only based on the averment that since the appellant
happened to be a member of the opposition party, the
party in power at that time had taken the impugned
action   to   resume   the   land   against   them.   Such
averments by itself do not constitute a plea of  mala
fides  without there being any substantial material in
its support.  In our view, the appellants having failed
to point out any legal infirmity in the resumption order
except   to   take   the   plea   based   on  mala   fides,   the
Division Bench was right in upholding the resumption
order as being legal and in conformity with clause 4 of
the allotment order.  We concur with the view taken by
6
the   Division   Bench   calling   for   no   interference.
Needless to observe, the State will ensure that the land
in question would only be used for the public purpose
and not for other purposes.
17. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   further
pointed out from the impugned order that the Division
Bench has made some disparaging remarks against
them at some places in the impugned order. In our
view, those remarks were irrelevant for deciding the
short controversy involved in the case.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
fail and are accordingly dismissed.
          ………...................................J.
       [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                               
    …...……..................................J.
                [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 26, 2019
7