# THE SECRETARY, JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAIPUR v. DAULAT MAL JAIN

- **Citation:** [1996] Supp. 6 S.C.R. 584
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-09-20
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 12370 of 1996
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-secretary-jaipur-development-authority-jaipur-v-daulat-mal-jain-14821
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

Land Laws:
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953: Sections 4, 6, 16 and 31(3).
Land Acquisition-Pwt of acquired land allotted to erstwhile ownerSubsequently owner sold such land to 'sub-awardees' or 'nominees'-Validity
of-Held : Once notification of acquisition of land issued u11der S. 4, declaration made u11der S. 6 and possession of land taken under S.16, pre-existing
D right, title and interest of la11downer stood ceased a11d same vested in State
free from all encumbrances-Hence, allotment of pa1t of la11d to erstwhile
owner was void-It was not saved by S. 31(3) of Act or R1: 31 and 36 of
Rules-Subsequent sale of pan of la11d to 'sub- awardees' or 'nominees' was
opposed to public policy a11d he11ce void under S. 23 of Contract Act-Consequently, purchasers acquired no 1ight, title or interest therein-Rajasthan
E Land Acquisition Rules, 1956, Rr. 31 and 36--Rajasthan Improvement Tntst
(Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1956-Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss. 4,
6, 31(3) & (4)-contract Act, 1872, S. 23.
F
G
Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 14 and 166(3).
Public Accountability-Misuse of power-By public servant viz., Ministe1~Held : Minister answerable and accountable to people for acts or
conduct in pe1f onnance of duties not only by him personally but also by
bureaucrats working under him.
A1ticle 14-Discrimination-If some persons derived benefit by illegality, others similarly situated could not claim same benefit on ground of
equality-Judicial pro.cess could not be abused to perpetuate illegalities.
A notification under· Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition
Act, 1953 was published in the Oflicial Gazette for acquiring land for a
H housing scheme. After following the procedure, an award was passed and
584
SECY. JAIPUR DEV. AUTHORITY v. D.M. JAIN
585
possession of the land was taken. Therein, apart from awarding compenA
sation to the owners the land Acquisition Otlicer (LAO) granted plots to
owners, sub-awardees or nominee in the scheme itself. It was the case of
the respondents that pursuant to a public policy, the Government had
decided to allot the lands to the sub-awardees/nominees. Further, the
Minister, accepting the same, had directed delivery of possession of land. B
The respondents purchased the lands from the erstwhile owner, pursuant
to the sale deeds executed by him. These allotments were questioned by
way of writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court held that the LAO
and the Minister had committed illegality for such allotments being obnoxious, deflected the scheme and defeated the public purpose by abusing
public office. However, the High Court directed allotment of the lands to C
the respondents since allotment made to others had become final and
denial thereof to the respondents would amount to violation of equality
clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Being aggrieved the
appellant preferred the present appeal.
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the LAO was
empowered under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956 to allot the
lands in lieu of compensation; that Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 which is in pali materia with Section 31 of the Act empowered the LAO
D
to allot land in lieu of compensation; that the public policy further
reiterated it; that the Government decided to allot land to the awardees, E
sub-awardees or nominees of the erstwhile owners of the land; that in
furtherance thereof, all<!_tment came to be made, directions were given for
deposit of the value of the sites pursuant to which the amount came to be
deposited; that the Government had evolved the policy to mete out the
problem of the rehabilitation of the awardees, sub-awardees and nominees; F
that the Government, therefore, in implementation of the scheme had
allotted the plots, amounts were deposited in furtherance of the policy,
irrespective of the fact whether or not the LAO had power to allot the land
to the awardees or sub-awardees or nominees; that the policy of the
Governme

## Text

_Characters 0–39,964 of 59,828. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39964 for what follows._

A
B
c
THE SECRETARY, JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, JAIPUR
v.
DAULAT MAL JAIN
SEPTEMBER 20, 1996
'
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Land Laws:
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953: Sections 4, 6, 16 and 31(3).
Land Acquisition-Pwt of acquired land allotted to erstwhile ownerSubsequently owner sold such land to 'sub-awardees' or 'nominees'-Validity
of-Held : Once notification of acquisition of land issued u11der S. 4, declaration made u11der S. 6 and possession of land taken under S.16, pre-existing
D right, title and interest of la11downer stood ceased a11d same vested in State
free from all encumbrances-Hence, allotment of pa1t of la11d to erstwhile
owner was void-It was not saved by S. 31(3) of Act or R1: 31 and 36 of
Rules-Subsequent sale of pan of la11d to 'sub- awardees' or 'nominees' was
opposed to public policy a11d he11ce void under S. 23 of Contract Act-Consequently, purchasers acquired no 1ight, title or interest therein-Rajasthan
E Land Acquisition Rules, 1956, Rr. 31 and 36--Rajasthan Improvement Tntst
(Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1956-Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss. 4,
6, 31(3) & (4)-contract Act, 1872, S. 23.
F
G
Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 14 and 166(3).
Public Accountability-Misuse of power-By public servant viz., Ministe1~Held : Minister answerable and accountable to people for acts or
conduct in pe1f onnance of duties not only by him personally but also by
bureaucrats working under him.
A1ticle 14-Discrimination-If some persons derived benefit by illegality, others similarly situated could not claim same benefit on ground of
equality-Judicial pro.cess could not be abused to perpetuate illegalities.
A notification under· Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition
Act, 1953 was published in the Oflicial Gazette for acquiring land for a
H housing scheme. After following the procedure, an award was passed and
584
SECY. JAIPUR DEV. AUTHORITY v. D.M. JAIN
585
possession of the land was taken. Therein, apart from awarding compenA
sation to the owners the land Acquisition Otlicer (LAO) granted plots to
owners, sub-awardees or nominee in the scheme itself. It was the case of
the respondents that pursuant to a public policy, the Government had
decided to allot the lands to the sub-awardees/nominees. Further, the
Minister, accepting the same, had directed delivery of possession of land. B
The respondents purchased the lands from the erstwhile owner, pursuant
to the sale deeds executed by him. These allotments were questioned by
way of writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court held that the LAO
and the Minister had committed illegality for such allotments being obnoxious, deflected the scheme and defeated the public purpose by abusing
public office. However, the High Court directed allotment of the lands to C
the respondents since allotment made to others had become final and
denial thereof to the respondents would amount to violation of equality
clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Being aggrieved the
appellant preferred the present appeal.
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the LAO was
empowered under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956 to allot the
lands in lieu of compensation; that Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 which is in pali materia with Section 31 of the Act empowered the LAO
D
to allot land in lieu of compensation; that the public policy further
reiterated it; that the Government decided to allot land to the awardees, E
sub-awardees or nominees of the erstwhile owners of the land; that in
furtherance thereof, all<!_tment came to be made, directions were given for
deposit of the value of the sites pursuant to which the amount came to be
deposited; that the Government had evolved the policy to mete out the
problem of the rehabilitation of the awardees, sub-awardees and nominees; F
that the Government, therefore, in implementation of the scheme had
allotted the plots, amounts were deposited in furtherance of the policy,
irrespective of the fact whether or not the LAO had power to allot the land
to the awardees or sub-awardees or nominees; that the policy of the
Government to allot plots legitimated the allotment made to the respondents and, therefore, the allotment was valid in law; that since some people G
were given possession and some among them had built houses thereon, the
respondents could not be denied of their right to possession; that having
. deposited the amount 20 years ago due to the impugned allotment they
were denied the right to apply for allotment elsewhere; that conse9uential·
ly, the respondents now would be rendered without any remedy for allot- H
586
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996] SUP.P. 6 S.C.R.
A
ment; and that interference, at this distance of time, would cause undue
hardship to the respondents.
B
Disposing of the app~I, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The Government runs the Executive Government of a
State with the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and the Council of
Ministers which' exercise the powers and performs its duties by the in·
dividual Ministers as public officers with the assistance of the bureaucracy
working in various Departments and Corporate sectors etc. Though they
are expressed in the name of the Governor, each Minister is personally and
C collectively responsible for the actions, acts and policies. They are accountable and answerable to the people. Their powers and duties are regulated
by the Law and the rules. The legal and moral responsibility or liability for
the acts done or omissions, duties performed and policy laid down rest
solely on the Minister of the Department. Therefore, they are indictable for
their conduct or omission, or misconduct or misappropriation. The CounD cil of Ministers are jointly and severally responsible to the Legislature.
He/they is/are also publicly accountable for the acts or conduct in the
performance of duties. [596~F, G, H & 597-A]
1.2. The Minister holds public office though he gets constitutional
E
status and performs functions under constitution, law or executive policy.
The acts done and duties performed are public acts or duties as holder of
the public office. Therefore, he owes certain accountability for the acts done
or duties performed. In a democratic society government by rule of law,
power is conferred on the holder of the public office or the concerned
authority by the Constitution by virtue of appointment. The holder of the
F
office, t~erefore, gets opportunity to abuse or misuse the office. (597 -B-C]
2.1. The Government acts through its bureaucrats, who shapes its
· social, economic and administrative policies to further the social stability
and progress socially, economically and politically. Actions of the GovernG ment, should be accounted for social morality. Therefore, the actions of the
individuals would reflect on the actions of the Government. The actions are
intended to further the goal.s set down ·in the Constitution, the laws or
administrative policy. The action would, therefore, bear necessary integral
connection between the 'purpose' and the end object of public welfare and
not personal gain. The action cannot be divorced from that of the individual
H actor. The end is something aimed at and only individuals can have and
SECY.JAIPURDEV.AU1HORrfYv. D.M.JAIN
587
shape the aims to further the social, economic and political goals. The A
ministerial responsibility threat comes into consideration. The Minister is
responsible not only for bis actions but also for the job of the bureaucrats
who work or have worked under him. He owes the responsibility to the
electors for all bis actions taken in the name of the Governor in relation to
the Department of which he is the head. He bears not only moral responB
sibility but also in relation to all the actions of the bureaucrats who work
under him bearing actual responsibility in the working of the Department
under his ministerial responsibility. [597-E-H, 598-A-C]
2.2. All purposes or actions for which moral responsibility can be
attached are actions performed by individual persons composing the
Department. All Government actions, therefore, means actions performed
by individual persons to further the objectives set down in the Constitution,
c
the laws and the administrative policies to develop democratic traditions.
Social and economic democracy are set down in the Preamble, Part III and
Part IV of the Constitution. The intention behind the Government actions D
and purposes is to further the public welfare and the national interest.
Public good is synonymous to protection of the interests of the citizens as
a territorial unit or nation as a whole. It also aims to further the public
. policies. The limitation of the policies are kept along with the public interest to prevent the exploitation or misuse or abuse of the office or the
executive actions for personal gain or for illegal gratification. [598-D-E-F]
3,1. The so-called public policy cannot be a camouflage for abuse of
the power and trust entrusted with a public authority or public servant for
E
the performance of public duties. Misuse implies doing or something improper. The essence of impropriety is replacement of a public motive for a F
private one. When satisfaction sought in the performance of duties is for
mutual personal gain, the misuse is usually termed as corruption. The
holder of a public office is said to have misused his position when in pursuit
of a private satisfaction, as distinguished from public interest, he has done
something which he ought not to have done. The most elementary qualificaG
ti on demanded of a Minister is honesty and incorruptibility. He should not
only possess these qualifications but should also appear to possess the
same. The rules of Code of Conduct for political executives, public servants
and private entrepreneurs, emphasising merit and regulated system of
appointment in state bureaucracy and stimulating pride in public service,
would generate remedies for political corruption. [598-G, H, 599-A, 599-H] H
A
B
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Holly, (1977) 1 All ER 316; R. v.
Andrews Weatheifoil Ltd. & Ors., (1972) 1 All ER 65; Rother Valley Railway
Co. Ltd. v. Minist1y of Transport, (1972) 2 W.L.R. 1041; Ch. D, Regi.na v.
Smith, (1960) 2 W.L.R.164 (Court of Criminal Appeal) andR v.Braithwaite,
(1983) 2 All ER 87 (Cr.D), referred to.
Seymour Mertin Lipset: "Encyclopedia of Democracy", Vol. I, p-310,
referred to.
3.2. The court, therefore, would be required to consider whether the
policy sought ,to be relied on and directed by the Minister was to further
C public good or was a means to fritter away the public property for personal
gain or to misuse public power. The public policy under the Act is that the
acquired land should be used only for public purpose declared under
Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 or any other
public purpose and under no circumstances, for any private purpose. The
limited relaxation of public power entrusted with the LAO is to allot any
D other land, if available to the owner with limited interest or remission of
land revenue when limited interest is acquired for public purpose.
(600-H, 601·A~B]
4.1. The respondents purchased the lands from the erstwhile owner,
pursuant to the sale deeds executed by him or an agreement of sale etc.
E Their source of title, therefore, is the erstwhile owner. The sales obviously
are void since the erstwhile owner had no right, title and interest in the land
acquired pursuant to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act issued and
possession taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
equivalent Sect!on 16 of the State Act. The pre-existing right, title and
F
interest held by the erstwhile owner stood ceased and the same were vested
in the appellant free from all encumbrances. All encumbrances stand extinguished by operation of Section 16 of the Act. Therefore, the purchaser
gets no title to the acquired land. The sale (being opposed to the public
policy) was void under Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872. Consequentially,
the respondents acquired no right, title or interest either under the sale
G deeds or agreement entered into by them with the erstwhile owner. The
nomenclature of sub-awardees or nominees does not get elevated ~hove the
source and they had no right, title or interest under void sale except, if at
all, only to claim compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act.
(595-E-H, 596-A-C]
H
Gian Chand v. Gopala & Ors., (1995] 2 SCC 528 and Yadu Nandan
SECY. JAIPUR DEV. AUTIIORITY v. D.M. JAIN
589
Garg v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., JT (1995) 8 SC 179, relied on.
4.2. Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956 was made
to guide the exercise of power of the collector (Land Acquisition Oflicer)
. under Section 31(3) of the Act. The Government has empowered the Collector to allot "any other land" in lieu of money compensation only when the
land acquired belongs to a person having "limited interest in the land", like
widow's estate of minor's estate, Mutawali etc. In that behalf, Rule 31
amplifies the exercise of the power by the authorised LAO. Rule 31 is only
to elongate the discretion which the LAO is expected to exercise in awarding
land in lieu of cash consideration and the circumstances in which it would
be done. Equally, Rule 36 deals with disposal of the excess land acquired
by the Collector for a company and imposition of the conditions for sanction of transfer of excess land. Therefore, the absence of reference of them
does not make any dent into the principle of law laid in Radhey Shyam 's
case. That apart, these two rules merely emphasise the limited power given
A
B
c
to the Government and to the LAO to impose the conditions and restrictions to attain the public purpose for which the land is acquir~d and is not D
intended to fritter away public property for private purposes or gain or
illegal gratification. The allotment to the respondents was not under the
Rajasthan Improvement (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. [601-C-H]
Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam & Ors., [1994) 4 SCC
370, relied on.
4.3. There was no policy laid down by the Government and it cannot
E
be laid contrary to the aforestated rules and no such power was given to
individual Minister by executive action, as the land was already notified
conclusively under Section 6(1) for public purpose, namely, earmarked F
scheme. Since the persons whose land was acquired were not owners having
limited interest therein, qua the owners having lost right, title and interest
therein, the sub-awardees or nominees, after the acquisition under Section
4(1), would acquire no title to the land nor such ultra vires acts of the
Minister would bind the Government. The actions, therefore, taken by the G
Minister-cum-Chairman of the appellate authority and bureaucrats for
obvious reasons would not clothe the respondents with any vestige of right
to allotment. The policy does not bear any insignia of a public purpose, but
appears to be a devise to get illegal gratification or distribution of public
property defeating the public purpose by misuse of public office.
[602-E-F, 603-A] H
A
B
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
5.1. There was no evidence that under the so-called policy, anyone
from general public could equally apply for allotment of the plots or was
eligible to apply for sq.ch allotment nor any such general policy was
brought to the notice of this Court. The allotment was benefitted only a
specified class, namely, th~ awardees, sub-awardees or nominees and none
else. The decision by the Minister or the actions of the bureaucrats was
limited to the abov~ class which included the respondent. Legitimacy was
given to the void acts of the erstwhile owr.er as well as the LAO. Directions
were given by the Minister and the bureaucrats acted to allot the land
under the very void acts. They are ultra vires the power. These acts are in
utter disregard of the statute and the rules. Therefore, it cannot be said
C to have the stamp of public policy; rath~r it is a policy to feed corruption
and to deflect the public purpose and to confer benefits on a specified
category, as described above. [603-B-D]
5.2. The illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy
D' of allotment made to some other persons wrongly, would not form a legal
premise to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such
illegal order, nor could it be legalised. Judicial process cannot be abused
to perpetuate the illegalities. Article 14 proceeds on the premise that a
citizen has legal and valid right enforceable at law and person having
similar right and persons similarly circumstanced, cannot be denied of the
E benefit thereof. Such person cannot be discriminated to deny the same
benefit. The rational relationship and legal back up are the foundations to
invoke the doctrine of equality in case of persons similarly situated. If
'some persons derived benefit by illegality and had escaped from the
ctiltches of law, similar persons cannot plead, nor court can countenance
F
that benefit had from infraction of law and must be allowed to be retained.
One illegality cannot be compounded by permitting similar illegal or
illegitimate or ultra vires acts. The High Court was clearly in error in
directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents.
[604-A-C, 605-E-F]
G
Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., JT (1995) 8 SC 179;
Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. v. Union of In(i,ia & Ors., [1994] Supp. SCC 457
and Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., [1995) 1 SCC
745, relied on.
6.1. There is, however, force in the contention that if allotments
H would be cancelled by this Court, it would be virtually impossible for the
SECY. JAIPUR DEV. AUTHORITYv. D.M. JAIN [K. RAMASWAMY, J.) 591
respondents to acquire residential plots any where now in the city in view A
of the great increase in prices of land in.the-meantime. It is not possible
to overlook or ignore this facet of the case; more so, because it may be that
the respondents had not obtained the allotments by taking recourse to any
illegal means. Therefore, this Court would not invoke its power under
Article 136 to undo the impugned order of the High Court even ifthe same B
be illegal. [606-B, CJ
6.2. It is, however, necessary to modify the direction of the High
Court, as a very special case, in two respects. First, the respondents would
be given allotment in some other scheme. Secondly, the area of the land to
be allotted would be uniform. In similar cases, this Court has favoured C
uniformity as regards the area. As the plot would be needed for residential
purpose, an area of 250 sq. yds. would be enough and proper. Therefore,
it is ordered that an allotment of plot measuring about 250 sq. yds. be
made to each of the two respondents in some other scheme of JDA. This
would, however, be at the rate which was prevailing when the allotments D
were first made to them. [606-C-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTiON: Civil Appeal No. 12370 of
1996 Etc. Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.93 of the Rajasthan High E
Court in D.B.C.S.A.W. No. 680 of 1992.
Dr. Sh~nkar Ghosh and S.K. Bhttacharya for the Appellant.
G.L. Sanghi, S.M. Jain, S.K. Jain, A.P. Dhamija, S. Ganesh, Mrs.
Pratibha Jain for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. RAMASWAMY, J. The facts of these cases expose the blatant
misuse of public office by Minister of Urban Development, Government of G
Rajasthan as Chairman of the appellant authority; they, in particular
demonstrate the danger involved in entrusting unbridled dual powers in a
single individual leading to abuse of office on account of lack of counter
ch6ck. It would be appropriate to extract from the enquiry report dated
November U, 1992 of the Lokayukta of Rajasthan under Section 10 of the
Rajasthan Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act, 1973 as under :
H
A
B
c
D
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
"lri view of what has been stated above, it is p1ima f acie established
that Smt. Kamala, the then Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development
and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan-cum-Chairman J.D.A. Jaipur, Shri N.D. Kaurani, IAS the then Commissioner,
Jaipur Development Authority and Shri Subhebhan Mitra, the then
Zonal Officer, Lal Kathi Scheme, J.D.A. Jaipur have blatantly
misused their official position to favuur a few influential and highly
placed individuals and have also thereby caused wrongful gain to
them and wrongful loss to the Jaipur Development Authority and
the public at large. But Smt. Kamala, the then Hon'ble Minister,
Urban Development and Housing Department-cum-Chairman,
J.D.A. is not now a public servant as defined in Section 2(1) of
the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Act, 1973 (for short,
the 'Act') because she has ceased to be a Minister, so investigation
is not being commenced against her but the investigation deserves
to be commenced against S/Shri M.D. Kaurani, IAS and Subhebhan Mitra under Section I of the Act and I order accordingly."
Edmund Burke as early as in 1780 had lamented the corroding
influence of corruption thus : "Corrupt influence, which is itself the perennial spring of all prodigality, and of all disorder, which loads us, more than
millions of debt; which takes away from our arms wisdom from our
E councils, and every shadow of authority and credit from the most venerable
parts of our constitution."
The facts in nutshell in these cases are as under :
F
Notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act,
1953 (for short, the 'Act') was published in the State Gazette on June 29,
1960 acquiring land in Bhojpura and Chuck Sudershanpura, Tehsil Jaipur'
popularly known as Lal Kathi Scheme, which is adjacent to the Jaipur City
for urban development, viz., for multipurpose project Qf constructing LegisG lative Assembly M.L.A. quarters etc. After following the procedure, an
award was passed on January 9, 1964 and possession taken later on.
Therein, .apart from awarding compensation to the owners, the Land
Acquisition Officer granted plots ranging between 2000 sq. yds. to 1000 sq.
yds. to owners, sub-awardees or nominees in the scheme itself. This Court
in Jaipur Development Authority v. Radliey Shyam & Ors., (1994] 4 SCC 370,
H known as Radliey Shyam's case, had held that the Land Acquisition Officer
SECY. JAIPUR DEV. AUTHORITY v. D.M. JAIN [K RAMASWAMY, J.] 593
(LAO) was devoid of the power and jurisdiction under Section 11 to allot A
part df the acquired land or any land to the land owners etc. in determining
compensation under Section 23(1). It was, therefore, held that the award
alloting land was void ab initio and it confered no right on ·an erstwhile
khatedar/owner to cla!m·possession of the land in execution of the award.
The award, confirmed in the decree under Section 26, though had bec:ome
. final, being a nullity, it could be questioned at any stage, when it is sought
to be executed/enforced. ~t was, therefore, held that the ~xecution of such
a decree and delivery of the possession iq furtherance of the award was
invalid, void and inexecutable. These cases spring from the same foul
source and being part of the same scheme and same award, are governed
by the above judgment. The Khatedar (owner) in these cases is one
Chhote Lal whose 14 bighas of land had come to be acquired. The LAO
awarded 2000 sq. yards to him. He entered into agreements with respondents Daulat Mal and Raj Kumafi to Sell 1000, 500, 250 sq. yds. etc. The
B
c
sale deeds came to be registered on December·14, 1970. The purchasers
were described as sub-awardees or nqminees, which terms are unknown ~o D
the law of property acquired for public purpose.
0. ... .
•
•
Then came into picture the Minister-cum-Chairman . and the socalled Committees. It is now. the case of the respondents that pursuant to
a public policy, the Government had decided in 1978 to a~lot th~. lands to
the sub-awardees/nominees @ Rs. 8 per sq. yd. Further, the Minister,
accepting the same, had directed delivery of the possession and. subsequently the amount was received @ Rs. 8 per sq'. ·yd. or at revised rates ·
of Rs. 50. per sq. y~.; details thereof being not material for the purpose of
this case, are omitted. It.would appear-that, subsequently, the lands were
. ~further sub-djvided to escalate the net by reducing the area of allotment in
the proceedings dated September 16, 1980. Lots were drawn for allotment
of the plots on December 23, 1980. They came to be;questioned by way of
E
F
writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court came heavily against the
illegality committed by the LAO and the Minister for such allotments being
obnoxious, deflecting the scheme and defeating the public purpose by
abusing public office. When it was inquired into by the Lokayukta, in the G
aforestated report, he castigated the persons for the blatant abuse of the
power and action was accordingly initiated. It shocks the judicial i;onscience in that it did not touch even the fringe of "actors". The counsel for
respondents, rightly and in the light of the settled legal position, admitted
that the respondents did not acquire any title to the lands sold to them H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
und~r defective and void title. However, they strongly pressed into service
the orders of allotment issued by the Minister, the accyptance of payment
and the so-called public policy to support their claim for poss~ssion.
.
In this background, the question arises; whet~er the High Court was
B right in directing allotment of the lands to the respondents ·Since allotment
made to others had bec;ome final and denial thereof.to th~ respondents
would amouqt to violation of equality clause enshrined iI?. Article 14 of the
Constitution, which is now the subject matter of these appeals? In fairness,
the l{'.arned Judges have held that the allot~ent of the plots was in violation
of the scheme and the award of the LAO and did not confer any right to
C the purchasers, sub-awardees or n~minees. Yet the rel_ief has been founded
on the preQJ.ise of violation of equality on par with others who got possession under the void·awaql. etc. It directed the appellants to deliver possession of the plots allotted to them on the basis of the sales and letters of
allotment thereof. Thus, these appeals arise from the .judgment and order
.D of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court made on September 2,
1993 in Writ Petition No. 680 of 92 etc.
Dr. Shankl'!r Ghosh,· tea,rned senior counsel appearing in one case
and Shri. S.K. Bhattacharya appearing in another, contended that in view .
of the law laid down in Radhey Shyam 's case, the direction issued by the
E High Court is illegal. There is no discrimin<1;tion for perpetration of wrongful acts in furtherance of void orders. Extension of the equality in Ai:ticle
14 for breach of ·law would aid impetus to perpetrate further illegalities.
Article 14 is unavailable in this baclcdrop.
F
Mis. G.L.·Sanghi, learned senior counsel and M.S. Ganesh, learned
counsel for the respondents and S.M. Jain for the petitioner in the third
case, contended that the judgment in Radhey Shyam's case is per incuriam
since the relevant provisions 'under the Act and the Rajasthan Land
Acquisition Rules had not been brought to the notice of this Court. The
LAO was empowered under the Rules to allot the lands in lieu of comG pensation; Section 31 of the Central Act which in pari materia :vith Section
31 of the Act empowers the LAO to allot land in lieu of compensation.
The policy of 1978 further reiterated it. The Government decided to allot
land to the awardees, sub-awardees or nominees of the erstwhile owners
of the land. In furtherance thereof, allotment came to be made, directions
H / were given for deposit of the value of the sitr;s pursuant to which the
. ~ECY.JAIPURDEV.AUTHORITYv. D.M.JAIN [KRAMASWAMY,J.) 595
amount came to be deposited. The extent of the land purchased by the A
respondents in 500 sq. yds. and it was further reduced to 400 sq. yd. and
250 sq. yd. etc. The Government had evolved the policy to mete out the
problem of the rehabilitation of the awardees, sub-awardees and nominees.
The Government, therefore, in implementation of the Scheme had allotted
' the plots, amounts were deposited in furtherance of the policy, irrespective
of the fact whether or not the LAO had power to allot the land to the
awardees or sub-awardees or nominees. The policy of the Government to
allot plots legitimatises the allotmen! made to the respondents. Therefore,
B
c
the allotment is valid in law. Since some people were 'given possession and
some among them had built houses thereon, the respondents cannot be
denied of their right to possess'ion. It is further contended that the respondents having deposited the amount 20 years ago due to the impugned
allotment they were denied the right to apply for allotment elsewhere.
Consequentially, the respondents now would be rendered without any
remedy for allotment. Interference, at this distance of time, would cause
undue hardship to the respondents. Though for different reasons, the High D
Court, therefore, was. right in holding that the r·~spondents were discriminated against due to non-delivery of possession of plots to them for
construction of their houses:
Th9 diverse contentions give rise to the first question : whether the E
respondents have a right to allotment of the lands? It is an admitted
position that they purchased the lands from Chhote Lal, the erstwhile
owner, pursuant to the sale deeds executed by him in 1970 or an agreement
of sale etc. Their source of title, therefore, is Chhote Lal, the erstwhile
owner. The sales obviously are void since Chhote Lal had no right, title
and interest in the land acquired pursuant to notification under Section F
4(1) issued on dated June 29, 1960 and possession taken under Section 16
of the Centrai Act and equivalent to Section 16 of the State Act. The
pre-existing right, title and interest had by Chhote Lal stood ceased and
the same were vested in· the appellant free from all encumbrances. The
nomenclature of sub- awardees or nominees does not get elevated above
the source and they had no right, title or interest under void sale except, G
if at ail, only to claim compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act. In
Gain Chand v. Gopala & Ors., (1995] 2 SCC 528 this Court had held that
after the notification under Section 4(1) is published, any encumbrances
created by the owner of the land does not bind the Government. The
agreement of sale, if any, was frustrated by the publication of the notifica- H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A tion under Sectio~ 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. In Yadu
Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., JT (199,5) 8 SC 179 and eaten~
of other decisions, this Court has held that the purchase after notification
under Section 4(1) published in the Gazette was not lawful which did not
clothe the sale with any colour of title as against the State. All encumbranB ces stand extinguis,hed by operation of Section 16 of the Act. Therefore,
the purchaser gets no title to the acquired land. The sale (being opposed
to the pubJic policy) ~as void under Section 23 of Contract Act. Consequentially, the respondents acquired no right, title or int~rest either under
the sale deeds or agreement entered.into by !hem with Chhote Lal, the
erstwhile owner.
c
The next question is : whether there is any public policy allotment of
th!:'. land to the respondents independent of the colour ~of their title? It is
, seen from the record. that the premise on which the Minister and the
Committee headed. by the Minister had proceeded to allot the lands to the
respondents and other, was the void awatct made by the LAO giving land
D to the erstwhile owners, sub-awardees or nominees, apart from compemation given un'der Section 23(1): That preniise was knocked of i~ bottom in
the Radhey Shyam's case. It would be a mockery to call it a policy of the
Government, much less a.public policy.
E
The Governor calls upon the leader of a political party/groups that
command majority in the Assembly to form the Government and appoints
him as Chief Minister. On tater's advice he appoints other Ministers.
Business of the Government gets allocated and is run as per business rules
framed under Article 166(3). The executive power of the State Government
p . extends over which the legislature has power to make law. The Government
runs the Executive Government of a State with the aid and advice of the
Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers which exercise the powers and
performs ·its duties by the hi.dividual Ministers as publiC officers with the
assistance of the bureaucracy working in various Departments and Corporate sectors etc. Though they are expressed in the name of the Governor,
G each Minister is personally and collectively responsible for the actions, acts
and policies. They are accountable and answerable to the people. Their
powers and duties are regulated by the law and the rules. The legal and
moral responsibility or liability for the acts done or omissions, duties
performed and policy laid down rest solely on the Minister of the DepartH ment. Therefore, they are indictable for their conduct or omission, or
SECY.JAIPURDEV.AU1HORITYv.D.M.JAIN[KRAMASWAMY,J.] 597
misconduct or misappropriation. The Council of Ministers are jointly and A
severally responsibly to the Legislature. He/they is/are also publicly accountable for the acts or conducts in the performance of duties.
The Minister- holds public office though he gets constitutional status
and performs functions under constitution, law or executive policy. The B
acts done and duties performed are public acts or duties as holder of the
public office. Therefore, he owes certain accountability for the acts done
or duties performed. In a democratic society governed by rule of law,
power is conferred on the holder of the public office or the concerned
·authority by the Constitution by virtue of appointment. The holder of the
office, therefore, gets opportunity to abuse or misuse the office. The C
politician who hblds public office must perform public duties with the sense
of purpose, and a sense of direction, under rules or sense-of priorities. The
purpose must be genuine in a free democratic society governed by the rule
of law to further socio-economic democracy. The executive Government
should frame i~s policies to maintain the social order, stability; progress D
and morality. All actions of the Government are perfor~ed through/by
indiVidual persons in collective or joint or individuii.l capacity. Therefore,
they should morally be respoflsible for their actions.
When a Government in office misuses its powers figuratively, we E
refer to lhe individual Minister/Council of Ministers who are constituents
of the Government. The Government acts through its bureaucrats,· who
shapes its social economic and 'administrative policies to further the social·
stability ~nd progress socially, economically and politically. A~tions of the
Government, should be accounted for social morality. Therefore, the ac-· F
tions of the individuals would reflect on the actions of the Government.
The actions are inten~ed to further the goals set down in the Constitution,
the laws or administrative policy. The action would, therefore, bear necessary integral connection between the 'purpose' and the end obji;ct of public
welfare and not personal gain. The action cannot be divorced from that of
the individual actor. The end is something aimed at and only individuals · G
~an have and shape the aims to further the socia~ economic and political
goals. The ministerial responsibility threat comes into consider~tion. The
Minister is responsible not only for his actions but also fqr the job of the
bureaucrats who work or have work'ed under him. He owes the responsibility to the electors for all his actions taken in the name of the Governor H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A in relation to the Department of which he is the head. If the Minister, in
fact, is responsible for all the detailed workings of his Department, then
clearly ministerial responsibility must cover a wider spectrum than mere
moral responsibility : for no minister can possibly get acquainted with all
the detailed decisions involved in the working of his Department. The
B Ministerial respon~ibility, therefore, would be that the Minister must be
prepared to answer questions in the House about the actions of his
department and the resultant enforcement of the policies. H.e owes them
moral responsibility. But for actions performed without his concurrence
also, he will be required to provide explanations and also bear responC sibility for the actions of the bureaucrats who work under him. Therefore,
he bears not only moral responsibility but also in relation to all the actions
of the bureaucrats who work under him bearing actual responsibility in the
working of the Department under his ministerial responsibility.
All purposes or actions for which moral responsibility can be atD tached are actions performed by individual persons composing the Department. All Government actions, ·therefore, means actions performed by
individual person to further the objectives set down in the Constitution, the
laws and the administrative policies to develop democratic traditions.
Social and economic democracy are set down in the Preamble, Part III and
E Part IV of the Constitution. The intention behind the Government actions
and purposes is to further the public welfare and the national interest.
Public good is synonymous to protection of the interests of the citizens as
a territorial unit or nation as a whole. It also aims to further the public
policies. The limitations of the policies are kept along with the public
F
interest to prevent the exploitation or misuse or abuse of the office or the
executive actions for personal gain or for illegal gratification.
The so-called public policy cannot be a camouflage for abuse of the
power and trust entrusted with a public authority or public servant for the
performance of public duties. Misuse implies doing of something improper.
G The essence of impropriety is replacement of a public motive for a private
one. When satisfaction sought in the performance of duties is for mutual
personal gain, the misuse is usually termed as corruption. The' holder of a
public office is said to have misused his position when in pursuit of a
private satisfaction, as distinguished from public interest, he has done
H something which he ought not to have done. The most elementary
·~-,-
SECY. JAIPUR DEV. AUTHORITYv. D.M. JAIN [K RAMASWAMY, l} 599
qualification demanded of a Minister is honesty and incorruptiqility. He A ·
should not only possess these qualifications but should also appear to
possess the same.
In the Encyclopedia of Democracy by Seymour Martin Lipset,' Vol.
1, page. 310, in the Chapter "Corruption", it is stated that corruption is an B
abuse of public resources for private gain. The occasions for political
corruption increases when control on the activity of public administrators
are fragile·and the division of power between political actors and the public
bureaucrats, as well as between the Government and the middle· man, is
unclear. It is difficult to. discover and punish cases of corruption. Research . C
has shown that political corruption tends to be·. more widespread in
authoritarian or totalitarian regimes and when p.ublic opinion and the press
are unable to denounce corruption. Corruption developes because of confusion about the bor~ers between State and society and between traditional
· and modern values. It can be expected to grow during phases.of transition.
Corr.uption should disappear in modern st~ble democratic societies·. In- 'D
stead, it _is growing.