judgement:
Civil Appeal No. 1177 (NCE) of 1986.
From the Judgment and order dated 17.1.1986 of the Allahabad High Court (Election Tribunal) in Election Petition No. 54 of 1985.
R.K. Garg and Ravi Parkash Gupta for the Appellant.
Qamarrudin and Mrs. Qamarrudin for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 633 VENKATARAMIAH, J.
This appeal is filed under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 195 l (hereinafter referred A to as 'the Act ') by the appellant against the Judgment dated January 17, 1986 of the High Court of Allahabad in Election Petition No. 34 of 1985 dismissing the Election Petition.
The election to the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly from Constituenc No. 41 Gunnaur, Village Mirzapur, District Baduan took place in early March, 1985.
16 candidates contested at the said election.
Respondent No. I Smt.
Pushpa Devi was declared elected having secured 23006 votes.
The next highest number of votes was secured by Shri Naurangi Singh.
He secured 20735 votes.
The difference between the votes secured by Respondent No. l and the votes secured by Respondent No. 2 was in the order of 227 l votes.
Respondent No. 8, who was working as a teacher in the Babu Ram Singh Intermediate College, Baburala, Baduan was also one of the candidates in the election.
He secured 3606 votes, which were more than the difference between the votes secured by Respondent No., and by Respondent No. 2.
The appellant, who was an elector at the said election, filed the Election Petition, out of which this appeal arises, contending that Respondent No. 8, who was working as a teacher in the Babu Ram Singh Intermediate College, Baburala, Baduan, was holding an office of profit under the State Government and, therefore, the acceptance of his nomination by the Returning officer was illegal.
Since Respondent No. 8 secured 3606 votes, which were higher than the difference between the votes secured by Respondent No. I and the votes secured by Respondent No. 2, the election of Respondent No. I should be considered as having been materially affected by the wrongful acceptance of the nomination paper of Respondent No. 8 and the election of Respondent No. 1 was liable to be set aside.
The Election Petition was contested by Respondent No. 1.
It was pleaded by Respondent No. 1 that the acceptance of the nomination paper of Respondent No. 8 was not illegal since Respondent No. 8 was not holding an office of profit under the State Government and secondly even if the acceptance of the nomination paper of Respondent No. 8 was illegal, the election could not be set aside since the result of the election was not materially affected thereby.
The High Court held that the acceptance of the nomination paper of Respondent No. 8 was not illegal as Respondent No. 8 was not holding an office of profit under the State Government and it further held that even if the acceptance of the nomination paper of Respondent No. 8 was illegal, the appellant had not established that the result of the election of Respondent No. I had been materially affected on the facts and in the H 634 circumstances of the case.
The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal.
Since it is possible to dispose of this appeal on the second ground we do not propose to express any opinion in this case on the question whether Respondent No. 8 was, in fact, holding an office of profit under the State Government or not on the date on which the nomination paper was filed or on the date of the election.
We leave the said question open.
In order to decide the second question it is necessary to set out the relevant part of section 100 of the Act which reads thus: "100.
Grounds for declaring election to be void (1) Subject to the provisions of sub section (2) if the High Court is of opinion . . . . . . . . . (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or. . " Section 100 of the Act makes a distinction between the effect of improper rejection of any nomination and the effect of the improper acceptance of any nomination on the election.
If a nomination of any person at an election has been improperly rejected the election of the returned candidate is liable to be set aside without any further proof because it is difficult to visualise the number of votes which the person whose nomination has been rejected would have secured at the election and there is every likelihood of the returned candidate not securing the highest number of votes.
It is for this reason clause (c) of section 100(1) of the Act states that if the High Court is of the opinion that any nomination has been improperly rejected it shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
Sub clause (i) of clause (d) of sub section (1) of section 100 of the Act is, however, worded differently.
It says that if the High Court is of opinion that the result of the election insofar as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination it 635 shall declare the election of the returned candidate as void.
Sub clause (i) of clause (d) of section 100( I) of the Act requires a petitioner in an election petition to establish two grounds in order to get the election of the returned candidate set aside, namely, (i) that there has been improper acceptance of any nomination; and (ii) that by reason of the entry of the candidate whose nomination has been improperly accepted into the contest the result of the election insofar as the returned candidate is concerned has been materially affected.
The reason for making a distinction between a case falling under clause (c) of section 100(1) of the Act and a case falling under sub clause (i) of clause (d) of section 100( I) of the Act can be explained with reference to a hypothetical case.
Let us assume that the returned candidate has secured at an election 30,000 votes and 20,000 votes have been secured by a candidate who has secured the next highest number of votes.
We shall assume that a third candidate, whose nomination paper had been improperly accepted has secured just 1000 votes.
In this case even if it is held while deciding an election petition that the nomination of the third candidate has been improperly accepted, there is no justification to set aside the election of the successful candidate because even if all the votes secured by the third candidate are added to the candidate who has secured the next highest number of votes he would be a person who has secured 21000 votes and the successful candidate would still be a person who has secured the highest number of votes at the election.
In this hypothetical case it has to be held that the result of the election has not been materially affected at all.
Such election petition has necessarily to be rejected.
This Court was called upon to decide a case similar to the present one in Vashist Narain Sharma vs Dev Chandra and others.
; In that case the returned candidate Vashist Narain Sharma had secured 12868 votes and Vireshwar Nath Rai secured the next highest number of votes, i.e.,10,996.
The difference in the number of votes secured by these two candidates was 1872.
Another candidate by name Dudh Nath at the election, whose validity was in issue in that case, had secured 1983 votes.
There were also two other candidates in the field.
One of the grounds in the election petition, out of which the above case arose, was that the election of the returned candidate was liable to be set aside since the nomination paper of Dudh Nath had been improperly accepted by the Election Commissioner.
The Court in that case held that the burden of proving that the result of the election had been materially affected on account of the improper acceptance of a nomination was on the petitioner and that even if there was wrongful acceptance of the nomination having regard to the number of votes secured by the several candidates it was not possible to hold that the 636 result of the election had been materially affected.
In Samant N. Balakrishna etc.
vs George Fernandez and Ors etc.
; , section 100( l)(d)(i)) of the Act again arose for consideration.
In that case this Court commented at pages 643 644 on the decision in Vashist Narain Sharma 's case (supra) thus: "Mr. Chari relies upon the rulings of this Court where it has been laid down how the burden of proving the effect on the election must be discharged.
He referred to the case reported in Vashist Narain Sharma vs Dev Chandra and Surendra Nath Khosla vs Dilip Singh and the later rulings of this Court in which Vashist Narain 's case has been fol.
lowed and applied.
In our opinion the matter cannot be considered on possibility.
Vashist Narain 's case insists on proof.
If the margin of votes were small something might be made of the points mentioned by Mr. Jethmalani.
But the margin is large and the number of votes earned by the remaining candidates also sufficiently huge.
There is no room, there fore, for a reasonably judicial guess.
The law requires proof.
How far that proof should go or what it should contain is not provided by the Legislature.
In Vashist 's case and in Inayatullah vs Diwanchand Mahajan, the provision was held to prescribe an impossible burden.
The law has however remained as before.
we are bound by the rulings of this Court and must say that the burden has not been successfully discharged.
We cannot overlook the rulings of this Court and follow the English rulings cited to us.
" The very same question was considered by this Court in Chhedi Ram vs Jhilmit Ram and others, by a bench of which one of us (Venkataramiah, J.) was a member.
The judgment in that case was delivered by Chinnappa Reddy, J.
In that case the returned candidate Jhilmit Ram had secured 17, 822 votes and Chhedi Ram, the runner up had secured 17449 votes.
Thus the difference between the successful candidate and the candidate who secured next highest votes was 373 votes.
There were four other candidates, of whom Moti Ram secured 6710 votes.
Chhedi Ram challenged the election of Jhilmit Ram on the ground that Moti Ram was a Kahar by caste, not entitled to seek election from the reserved constituency, i.e., his nomination had been improperly accepted and the result of election was materially affected.
The High Court found that Moti Ram was a Kahar by caste 637 and not a member of the scheduled Castes.
Having arrived at the conclusion that Moti Ram 's nomination had been accepted improperly, the High Court was not prepared to set aside the election of Jhilmit Ram as it took the view that the result of the election had not been shown to have been affected in view of the improper acceptance of the nomination of Moti Ram.
The election petition in that case was, therefore, dismissed.
Chhedi Ram then preferred an appeal to this Court against the judgment of the High Court.
This Court allowed the appeal.
In the course of the judgment Chinnappa Reddy, J. Observed thus "2.
We are afraid the appeal has to be allowed.
Under section l00(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 195 1, the election of a returned candidate shall be declared to be void if the High Court is of opinion that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination.
True, the burden of establishing that the result of the election has been materially affected as a result of the improper acceptance of a nomination is on the person impeaching the election.
The burden is readily discharged if the nomination which has been improperly accepted was that of the successful candidate himself.
On the other hand, the burden is wholly incapable of being discharged if the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted obtained a less number of votes than the difference between the number of votes secured by the candidate who got the next highest number of votes.
In both these situations, the answers are obvious.
The complication arises only in cases where the candidate, whose nomination was improperly accepted, has secured a large number of votes than the difference between the number of votes secured by the successful candidate and the number of votes got by the candidate securing the next highest number of votes.
The complication is because of the possibility that a sufficient number of votes actually cast for the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted might have been cast for the candidate who secured the highest number of votes next to the successful candidate, so as to upset the result of the election, but whether a sufficient number of voters would have so done, would ordinarily remain a speculative possibility only.
In this situation, the answer to the question whether the result of the 638 election could be said to have been materially affected must depend on the facts, circumstances and reasonable probabilities of the case, particularly on the difference between the number of votes secured by the successful candidate and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes, as compared with the number of votes secured by the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted and the proportion which the number of wasted votes (the votes secured by the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted) bears to the number of votes secured by the successful candidate.
If the number of votes secured by the candidate whose nomination was rejected is not disproportionately large as compared with the difference between the number of votes secured by the successful candidate and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes, it would be next to impossible to conclude that the result of the election has been materially affected.
But, on the other hand, if the number of votes secured by the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted is disproportinately large as compared with the difference between the votes secured by the successful candidate and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes and if the votes secured by the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted bears a fairly high proportion to the votes secured by the successful candidate, the reasonable probability is that the result of the election has been materially affected and one may venture to hold the fact as proved.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, a fact is said to he proved when after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
If having regard to the facts and circumstances of a case, the reasonable probability is all one way, a court must not lay down an impossible standard of proof and hold a fact is not proved.
In the present case, the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted had obtained 67 10 votes, that is, almost 20 times the difference between the number of votes secured by the successful candidate and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes.
Not merely that.
Th number of votes secured by the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted bore a fairly high proportion to the number 639 Of votes secured by the successful candidate it was a little over one third.
Surely, in that situation, the result of the election may safely be said to have been affected.
" In the case before us Respondent No. I had secured 23006 votes and Respondent No. 2 had secured 20735 votes.
The margin thus was of 22371 votes.
Respondent No. 8, the validity of whose nomination was questioned, had secured 3606 votes.
It is no doubt true that if we assume that all the 3606 votes secured by Respondent No. 8 would have gone to Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2 would have been the successful candidate.
at the election.
Having regard to the facts of this case we feel that it is not possible to hold that the appellant in this appeal has established that the result of the election of the returned candidate had been materially affected because the difference between the votes secured by Respondent No. 1 and the votes secured by Respondent No. 2 was 2272 votes.
Respondent No. 8 had secured only about 1 7th of the number of votes polled by the Respondent No. l and there were 15 candidates (excluding respondent No. 8) contesting the election.
It is not possible to reach a finding in this case by making a judicial guess that all the 3606 voters who had voted in favour of Respondent No. 8 would have cast their votes in favour of Respondent No. 2 alone.
Even if about 1350 of them had cast their votes in favour of any of the other 14 candidates (including the returned candidate) Respondent No. 2 could not have become the candidate who had secured the highest number of votes at the election.
At this stage it is relevant to refer to the observation of Gulam Hasan, J. In Vashist Narain Sharma 's, case (supra) which run thus: "But we are not prepared to hold that the mere fact that the wasted votes are greater than the margin of votes between the returned candidate and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes must lead to the necessary inference that the result of the election has been materially affected.
That is a matter which has to be proved and the onus of proving it lies upon the petitioner.
It will not do merely to say that all or majority of the wasted votes might have gone to the next highest candidate.
The casting of votes at an election depends upon a variety of factors and it is not possible for any one to predicate how many or which proportion of the votes will go to one or the other of the candidates.
While it must be recognised that the petitioner in such a case of confronted with a difficult situation, it is not possible to relieve him of the duty imposed upon him H 640 by section 100(1)(c) and hold without evidence that the duty has been discharged.
Should the petitioner fail to adduce satisfactory evidence to enable the Court to find in his favour on this point, the inevitable result would be that the Tribunal would not interfere in his favour and would allow the election to stand.
" In the case before us we are of the view that the High Court was right in observing that the appellant or any other party had not placed satisfactory evidence to reach the conclusion that all or a sufficient number of the wasted votes which had been cast in favour of Respondent No. 8 would have gone in favour of Respondent No. 2, had Respondent No. 8 not been one of the candidates at the election.
The High Court has on the evidence before it held that "in the context particularly of the poll being heavy and the contestants being large in number 16 in all it remains unreasonable to guess that if the respondent No. 8 were excluded from the arena of contest the wasted votes would have gone to the respondent No. 2 thereby enabling him to succeed.
The burden Iying upon the petitioner remains clearly undischarged and the speculative possibility does not attain the level of proof.
" We agree with the above observation of the High Court since the appellant has not discharged the burden which clearly lay on him or proving that the result of the election had been materially affected even assuming that the nomination of Respondent No. 8 had been improperly accepted.
This appeal should, therefore, fail.
We accordingly dismiss it.
We, however, make no order as to costs.
N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.

summary:
% In the election to the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly from constituency No. 41 held in early March, 1985, 16 candidates contested.
Respondent No. 1 was declared elected having secured 23,006 votes.
Respondent No. 2 secured 20,735 votes being the next highest.
The difference of votes secured by them was in the order of 2,271 votes.
Respondent No. 8 who was working as a teacher in a college and who was one of the candidates secured 3,606 votes which were more than the difference between the votes secured by respondent No. 1 and 2.
The appellant who was an elector at the said election filed an election petition contending that respondent No. 8 was holding an 'office of profit ' under the State Government as he was working as a teacher in a college and therefore, the acceptance of his nomination by the returning officer was illegal, that since respondent No. 8 secured 3,606 votes which were higher than the difference between the votes secured by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, the election of respondent No. 1 should be considered as having been materially affected by the wrongful acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 8, and the election of the respondent No. 1 was, therefore, liable to be set aside.
Respondent No.1 contested the election petition pleading that the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 8 was not illegal since he was not holding an office of profit under the State Government, and that even if the acceptance was illegal the election could not be set aside since the result of the election was not materially affected thereby.
Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 8 was not illegal as he was not holding an office of profit under the State Government and that 631 even if the acceptance of the nomination paper was illegal, the appellant had not established that the result of the election of respondent No. 1 had been materially affected on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
In the appeal to this Court on the question: whether the appellant had established that the result of the election of respondent No. 1 had been materially affected by the wrongful acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 8.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, ^ HELD: The appellant has not discharged the burden which clearly lay on him of proving that the result of the election had been materially affected, even assuming that the nomination of respondent No. 8 had been improperly accepted.
[640E] Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act makes a distinction between the effect of improper rejection of any nomination, and the effect of the improper acceptance of any nomination on the election.
If a nomination of any person at an election had been improperly rejected the election of the returned candidate is liable to be set aside without any further proof because it is difficult to visualise the number of votes which the person whose nomination has been rejected would have secured at the election and there is every likelihood of the returned candidate not securing the highest number of votes.
[634E G] Clause (c) of sub section (1) states that if the High Court is of the opinion that any nomination has been improperly rejected it shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
[634Gl Sub clause (i) of clause (d) of sub section (1) requires a petitioner in an election petition to establish two grounds in order to get the election of the returned candidate set aside.
namely (i) that there has been improper acceptance of any nomination and (ii) that by reason of entry of the candidate whose nomination has been improperly accepted into the contest the result of the election insofar as the returned candidate is concerned has been materially affected.
[635A B] Having regard to the facts of the instant case it is not possible to hold that the appellant has established that the result of the election of the returned candidate had been materially affected because the dif 632 ference between the votes secured by respondent No. 1, the returned candidate and respondent No. 2, the candidate who secured next highest votes was 2,271 votes.
Respondent No. 8, the validity of whose nomination was questioned, had secured only about 1/7th of the number of votes polled by respondent No. 1 and there were 15 candidates (excluding respondent No. 8) contesting the election.
It is not possible to reach a finding in this case by making a judicial guess that all the 3606 voters who had voted in favour of respondent No. 8 would have cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 2 alone.
Even if about 1350 of them had cast their votes in favour of any of the other 14 candidates (including the returned candidate) respondent No. 2 could not have become the candidate who had secured the highest number of votes at the election.
[639C E] The High Court was, therefore, right in taking the view that the appellant or any other party had not placed any satisfactory evidence to reach the conclusion that all or sufficient number of wasted votes which had been cast in favour of respondent No. 8 would have gone in favour of respondent No. 2, had respondent No. 8 not been one of the candidates at the election, that in the context particularly of the poll being heavy and the contestants being large in number, 16 in all It was unreasonable to guess that if the respondent No. 8 were excluded from the arena of contest the wasted votes would have gone to the respondent No. 2 thereby enabling him to succeed, and that the burden Iying upon the petitioner remained clearly undischarged and the speculative possibility did not attain the level of proof.
[640B D] Vashist Narain Sharma vs Dev Chandra and others, ]1955] 1 S.C.R. 509; Samant N. Balakrishna etc.
vs George Fernandez and Ors.
; , and Chhedi Ram vs Jhilmit Ram and others, p ] , referred to.


judgement:
Civil Appeal No. 2622 of 1987 From the Judgment and order dated 6.8.1985 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 139 of 1984.
V.S. Desai and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellants.
G.L. Sanghi, D. Chandrachud and Ms. Rainu Walia for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J.
The question raised in this appeal is a somewhat unusual one.
The State Government wants to withdraw proceedings for acquisition of lands initiated by it under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') by exercising its power under section 48 but the owner of the land is insisting that the Government should be directed to go ahead with the acquisition, taken over the lands and pay him compensation.
The reasons for this some 593 what unusual request will become apparent a little later.
By a notification dated 6th November, 1961, issued under section 4 of the Act, certain lands belonging to the respondent company were notified for acquisition in order to accommodate housing schemes of the Maharashtra Housing Board.
This was followed up, on 18th November, 1965, by a declaration under section 6 of the Act and, on 15th January, 1966, by notices calling upon the respondent to put forward its claims of compensation in respect of the land sought to be acquired.
Thereafter, however, no further proceedings were taken.
In the meantime it appears that the lands were encroached upon by a large number of trespassers who put up slums thereon.
The respondent repeatedly requested the State Government to take steps to remove the encroachments and to expedite the making of the award and payment of compensation but these requests went unheeded.
The respondent thereupon filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 1803/78 in the High Court of Bombay praying, inter alia, for a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Government to make the award under section 11 of the Act and to take possession of the lands after payment of due compensation to the respondent.
On 25th March, 1981, the State Government passed orders withdrawing the lands of the respondent from acquisition under section 48 of the Act.
The respondent was informed of this decision on the 20th of October, 1981 and an affidavit to this effect was also filed in the High Court in reply to the Writ Petition.
Thereupon the respondent company amended its Writ Petition, challenged the withdrawal order as mala fide and included a prayer for quashing the decision of the State Government to withdraw its lands from the acquisition.
This Writ Petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 9.11.83 and his decision was affirmed by a Division Bench on 6th August, 1985.
The State Government has preferred this appeal.
The contention of the respondent before the High Court was that the State Government had acted mala fide in invoking the power of withdrawal permitted by section 48 in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
It was contended that the purpose for which the lands had been sought to be acquired continued to subsist and that, all along, in the correspondence between the parties the State Government had given no indication that the lands were no longer needed by it for that purpose.
It was urged that the order under section 48 had been passed, after the respondent company filed a writ petition, solely with a view to defeat the relief claimed by the Company in the writ 594 petition and render the same infructuous.
It was submitted that the A respondent had not been able to take steps to remove the encroachments because of the pendency of the proceedings for acquisition inasmuch as under section 24 of the Act any expenditure incurred by the company in this regard could not be taken into account in determining the compensation due to the respondent.
It was pointed out that while the company was helpless in defending itself against the encroachments, the State had ample powers, while taking possession of the lands to remove the trespassers and enforce the surrender of the lands to the Government both under the Land Acquisition Act and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
It was urged that the long delay of about 20 years in taking the step of withdrawal showed mala fides on the part of the Government.
A grievance was also made that no show cause notice had been given to the respondent company before the withdrawal order was passed.
These contentions (except the last one which was left open) were accepted by the High Court.
We are of opinion that the High Court erred in striking down the order under section 48 and compelling the State Government to acquire the lands of the respondent.
Under the scheme of the Act, neither the notification under section 4 nor the declaration under section 6 nor the notice under section 9 is sufficient to divest the original owner of, or other person interested in, the land of his rights therein.
Section 16 makes it clear beyond doubt that the title to the land vests in the Government only when possession is taken by the Government.
Till that point of time, the land continues to be with the original owner and he is also free (except where there is specific legislation to the contrary) to deal with the land just as he likes, although it may be that on account of the pendency of proceedings for acquisition intending purchasers may be chary of coming near the land.
So long as possession is not taken over, the mere fact of a notification under section 4 nor declaration under section 6 having been made does not divest the owner of his rights in respect of the land or relieve him of the duty to take care of the land and protect it against encroachments.
Again, such a notification does not either confer on the State Govt.
any right to interfere with the ownership or other rights in the land or impose on it any duty to remove encroachments therefrom or in any other way safe guard the interests of the original owner of the land.
It is in view of this position, that the owner 's interests remain unaffected until possession is taken, that section 48 gives a liberty to the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before possession is taken.
By such withdrawal no irreparable prejudice is caused to the owner of the land, and if at all he has suffered any damage in cor 595 quence of the acquisition proceedings or incurred costs in relation thereto, he will be compensated therefor under section 48(2).
In this view of the matter, it does not matter even if there is lapse of considerable time between the original notification and the withdrawal under section 48 as held in Trustees of Bai Smarth Jain Shvetambar Murtipujak Gyanodhyaya Trust and others vs State of Gujarat and another.
, AIR 1981 Gujarat 107.
It also follows that the State can be permitted to exercise its power of withdrawal unilaterally and no requirement that the owner of the land should be given an opportunity of being heard before doing so should be read into the provision.
The High Court has taken the view that a decision of withdrawal from acquisition must be backed by reasons and cannot be arbitrary or whimsical.
We may observe that having regard to the scheme of the Act as discussed above, it is difficult to see why the State Government should at all be compelled to give any cogent reasons for a decision not to go ahead with its proposal to acquire a piece of land.
It is well settled in the field of specific performance of contracts that no person will be compelled to acquire a piece of land as any breach of a contract to purchase it can always be compensated for by damages.
That is also the principle of section 48(2).
But this consideration apart, and even assuming that a withdrawal order under section 48 should be backed by reasons and should be bona fide, we are of the opinion that in the present case the order is not vitiated in any manner.
The Government had intended to acquire a vast piece of vacant land for construction of houses by the State Housing Board.
But this land had been over run by slum dwellers to such an extent that it was no longer possible for the Government to effectuate the intended purpose af acquisition.
The High Court 's observations that "the respondents have not stated in their affidavit that the lands in question are unsuitable for the purpose in question" and that "the purpose continues to exist" lose all meaning in the face of the finding recorded by the High Court itself at another place that "the lands of the petitioners today are fully occupied by unauthorised hutments which have come up on these lands, rendering the lands worthless.
" The basic question is really whether the Government can be held responsible for this state of affairs and can be compelled to go ahead with the acquisition though its purpose could not be achieved.
We have already pointed out that the State can not be held responsible for the occupation of the land by trespassers.
It is true that if the Government decides to go ahead with the acquisition and to take possession of the land, it has powers to evict trespassers and to, secure possession of the land but, for this reason alone, they cannot be compelled to go ahead with the acquisition.
In the conditions presently 596 prevailing in major metropolitan cities, such eviction, for the Government, poses more serious difficulties than to a private person like the respondent company and it is common experience that, far from removing such encroachments, Government and municipalities are constrained to "regularise" them and provide them with civic necessities, Enactments like the Slums Act and the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act have further complicated the situation.
Where slum dwellers on a large scale occupy pieces of land, social and human problems of such magnitude arise that it is virtually impossible for municipalities, and no mean task even for the Government, to get the lands vacated.
If the Government is reluctant to go ahead with the acquisition in view of these genuine difficulties, it can hardly be blamed.
We see no justification to direct the Government to acquire the land and embark on such a venture.
We are also of the opinion that the fact that the Government exercised the power of withdrawal after the writ petition was filed does not spell mala fides, once the existence of circumstances, which, in our opinion, justified the Governments decision to withdraw, is acknowledged.
The High Court, in this context, has referred to section 24 of the Act and pointed out that the respondent company could not afford to take steps for the eviction of the slum dwellers as it might incur in this behalf will not be taken into account in determining the compensation payable to it under the Act.
This is not strictly correct for under section 24, it was open to the respondent company to have incurred such expenditure with the sanction of the Collector and claimed reimbursement but the respondent company did not seek the sanction of the Collector in this regard.
That apart, this clause of section 24 is only a provision laying down the rule that the State will, generally speaking, pay for the land only in the condition in which it was on the date of the section 4 notification and that subsequent changes on the land will not be taken into account in the determination of the compensation.
It cannot follow from this provision that the State should be compelled to take over the land because the owner of the land will need to take care of it at his own cost until it vests in the Government.
Far from a decision to withdraw in such cases as the present one, being considered to be mala fide, it could be perhaps said with greater truth that the Government would have been acting mala fide if, despite the clear knowledge that the land could not any longer be used for the purpose for which it had been acquired, it decided to go ahead with the acquisition.
We are emphatically of the view that the State Government has acted in best interests of the public and of public revenues and its decision cannot be faulted.
597 Before we conclude we may point out that somewhat similar questions came up for the decision of this Court in an appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra, from an order of the Bombay High Court reported as M/s. Majas Land Development Corpn.
& another vs State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1983 Bombay 188.
The special leave petition preferred by the State against the order of the High Court to a like effect was set aside by this Court, vide its order of August 1983, in Civil Appeal No. 6086 of 1983, by pointing out that it is open to the State Government to release the lands from acquisition and that the Land Acquisition officer cannot be compelled to make the award.
It was, however, pointed out that the Government will be liable to pay compensation to the claimants under section 48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
In the affidavit filed by the appellants before the High Court in the present case they have already called upon the respondent company to furnish details of claims, if any, regarding the compensation claimed under section 48.
It is open to the respondent company to pursue this claim and the State Government will dispose of the same in accordance with law.
We are therefore of the opinion that the order passed by the State Government under section 48 should be upheld and the release of the lands from acquisition sustained.
Learned counsel for the respondent company contended that at the time the land was initially acquired under section 4 there had been a proposal that the Government should grant in favour of the company some land contiguous to section No. 40, Hissas Nos. 2 & 3, in exchange for the land sought to be acquired and that the appellants should be directed to give or sell some land to the petitioner.
We are unable to follow how any such proposal, even if made originally, could survive in view of the acquisition proceedings having been dropped.
However, we express no opinion in this regard and leave it to the company, if so advised, to pursue the matter with the Government.
For the reasons discussed above, the civil appeal is allowed and the orders of the High Court dated 9.11.1983 and 6.8.1985 are set aside.
The Rule issued by the High Court stands discharged.
However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
S.L. Appeal allowed.

dataset_name: IN-Abs

summary:
% The State Government, by a notification dated November 6, 1961, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, notified for acquisition lands belonging to the respondent.
This was followed by a declaration dated November 18, 1965, under section 6 of the Act, and the notices calling upon the respondent to put its claims for compensation in respect of the lands sought to be acquired.
Thereafter, no further action was taken in this behalf.
In the meantime, the lands in question were encroached upon by a large number of trespassers who put up slums thereon.
The respondent repeatedly asked the State Government to take steps to remove the encroachments and expedite the making of the award and payment of the compensation but no action was taken by the Government.
The respondent thereupon filed a Writ Petition in the High Court for a writ of mandamus, directing the State Government to make the award under section 11 of the Act, and take possession of the lands after payment of the compensation to the respondent.
On March 25, 1981, the State Government passed an order under section 48 of the Act, withdrawing the lands of the respondent from acquisition, and the respondent was, accordingly, informed of that decision.
The respondent thereupon amended its writ petition to challenge the withdrawal order above said as mala fide and to pray for the quashing of the same.
The writ petition was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court and his decision was affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
Aggrieved, the State Government appealed to this Court, against the decision of the High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court, ^ HELD: The High Court erred in striking down the order under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and compelling the State 591 Government to acquire the lands of the respondent.
Under the scheme of the Act, neither the notification under section 4 nor the declaration under section 6 nor the notice under section 9 is sufficient to divest the original owner of, or other person interested in, the land of his rights therein.
Section 16 makes it clear beyond doubt that the title to the land vests in the Government only when possession is taken by the Government, and till that point of time, the land continues to be with the original owner and he is also free (except where there is specific legislation to the contrary) to deal with the land just as he likes.
So long as the possession is not taken over, the mere fact of a notification issued under section 4 or a declaration made under section 6, does not divest the owner of his rights in the land to take care of it and confer on the State Government any right whatsoever to interfere with the ownership of the land or safeguard the interests of the owner.
Section 48 gives liberty to the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before the possession of the land is taken by it.
By such withdrawal, no irreparable prejudice is caused to the owner of the land, and, if at all the owner has suffered any damage in consequence of the acquisition proceedings or incurred costs in relation thereto, he will be compensated therefor under section 48(2).
As held in Trustees of Bai Smarth Jain Shvetamber Murtipujak Ganodhaya Trust and Ors.
vs State of Gujarat and another, AIR 1981 Gujarat 107, the State can be permitted to exercise its power of withdrawal unilaterally.
Having regard to the scheme of the Act, it is difficult to see why the State Government should at all be compelled to give any cogent reasons for its decision not to go ahead with the acquisition of any land, as was the view of the High Court.
It is well settled in the field of specific performance of contracts that no person will be compelled to acquire any land, as a breach of a contract can always be compensated for by damages.
That is also the principle of section 48(2) of the Act.
[594D H; 595A D] Even assuming that a withdrawal order under section 48 should be backed by reasons and should be bonafide, in the present case, the order is not vitiated in any manner.
The Government had intended to acquire vacant land for the construction of houses, but his land had been over run by slum dwellers to such an extent that it was not possible for the Government to effectuate the intended purpose of acquisition.
The Government cannot be compelled to go ahead with the acquisition.
Where slum dwellers on a large scale occupy pieces of land, social and human problems of such a magnitude arise, that it is virtually impossible for municipalities, and no mean task for the Government, to get the lands vacated, and in view of these genuine difficulties if the Government is reluctant to go ahead with the acquisition, it can hardly 592 be blamed.
The Court sees no justification to direct the Government to embark upon such a venture to acquire the land.
Section 24 of the acts lays down the rule that the State will, generally speaking, pay for the land only in the condition in which it was on the date of issue f the notification under sec. 4, and that subsequent changes on the land will not be taken into account in the determination of the compensation.
The fact that the Government exercised the power of withdrawal after the writ petition was filed, does not spell mala fides, once, the existence of circumstances, which justified the decision of the Government to withdraw, is acknowledged.
Far from a decision to withdraw in such a case being considered mala fide, the Government would have been acting mala fide if, despite the clear knowledge that the land could not be used for its purpose, it had decided to go ahead with the acquisition.
The State Government has definitely acted in the best interests of the public and public revenues and its decision could not be faulted.
[595D F, H; 596B; F H] Appeal allowed.
Orders impugned of the High Court set aside.
n Rules issued by the High Court discharged.
[597G] M/s. Majas Land Development Corpn.
and another vs State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1983 Bombay 188, referred to.


judgement:
Civil Appeal No. 6626 of 1983.
From the Judgment and order dated 18.5.1983 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 13741 of 1982.
H 620 S.N. Kacker and R.B. Mehrotra for the Appellant.
B.D. Agarwala and Miss Asha Rani for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.
This is an appeal by the tenant against an order upholding the order of eviction.
The ground of eviction was on the landlord 's bona fide need and requirement.
The appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 18th of May, 1983 and also against the order dated 23rd of May, 1983 dismissing a review application by the said High Court.
Shri P.K. Mukerjee, respondent No. 1 herein had filed an application under section 3 of the U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 (Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act), hereinafter referred to as the old Act, seeking permission to file the suit for eviction of the tenant, the father of the appellant herein, on the ground that accommodation in dispute was bona fide required by the landlord for his personal need.
In September, 1971 the Rent Control and Eviction officer rejected the application of the landlord and held that his requirement was not bona fide.
On 12th of November, 1971 the Commissioner allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 1 against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer dated 5th of September, 1971.
It may be mentioned that on 15th of July, 1972 the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the new Act came into effect.
On 2nd of August, 1972 the State Government rejected the representation of the tenant namely, the father of the appellant filed under section 7 of the old Act against the order of the Commissioner dated 2nd of November, 1971.
On or about 7th of February, 1975 the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad allowed the writ petition of the tenant and set aside the orders of the Commissioner and the State Government hereinbefore mentioned.
On 3rd of August, 1978 a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad allowed the appeal of respondent No. 1 and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 7th of February, 1975 and upheld the orders of the Commissioner and the State Government allowing the eviction of the tenant.
In September, 1978 respondent No. 1 moved an application under section 21 read with section 43(2)(rr) of the new Act.
Thereafter it is alleged that respondent No. 1 had executed an agreement to sell the disputed premises in favour of the appellant 's wife namely, Smt.
Madhu Soni.
It is material to refer to the said agreement in brief.
The agreement is dated as mentioned hereinbefore 7th of November, 1978 621 and was entered into between Shri P.K. Mukerjee, the landlord and Smt.
Madhu Soni wife of Shri D.K. Soni (son of Shri Harbans Lal Soni) the then tenant.
It was stated that the landlord had filed an application against Shri H.L. Soni the father in law of vendee for permission to file a suit for eviction against him on account of his personal need for the aforesaid premises and permission had been granted.
It also recited that a portion of the said land which was demarcated in the site plan measuring about 121 ' x 101.5 ' of the vendor which would be for the construction of a house would be in exclusive possession of the vendor and the rest of the property at 8, Panna Lal Road, Allahabad being the disputed premises would be sold to Smt.
It also recited that the vendee or his family members would have no right of whatsoever nature and the vendee, that is to say, the appellant had given up his tenancy right in respect of the same, that is to say, the portion to be kept with the vendor and the premises will be built on the vacant land with the money that would be obtained by selling the property to Smt.
Madhu Soni.
The property was sold for Rs. 1,00,000 out of which Rs.5,000 was paid as earnest money and it was stipulated that the rest of the money would be paid at the time of the registration.
It was further agreed that the parties would move the proper authorities as early as possible for permission to transfer and the sale deed would be executed within one month of the grant of the permission and notice to the vendee.
It was further stated that if the vendee failed to get the sale deed executed after one month from the date of permission and notice to the vendee by the vendor, the earnest money of Rs.5,000 would be forfeited and the right of the vendor would be as it subsisted prior to the agreement.
It was further provided that in the event of non execution of the sale deed on account of any act or failure on the part of the vendee in pursuance of the agreement to sell, the property would stand released in favour of the vendor and the earnest money of Rs.5,000 would be forfeited.
It was clearly stipulated that the need of the vendor for the premises still subsisted and this agreement was being entered into since it would be possible for the vendor to construct a house for himself on the land not agreed to be transferred measuring 121 ' x 101.5 ' .
On that basis the parties had signed agreement on 7th November, 1978.
On 12th of December, 1978 the father of the present appellant Shri H.L. Soni who was the original tenant died leaving behind his widow and two sons including the appellant and one daughter.
It was alleged that on 18th of December, 1978 respondent No. l sent a letter of condolence to the appellant on the death of appellant 's father.
On 622 22nd of December, 1978 appellant informed the Prescribed Authority before whom the application under section 2 1(1)(a) of the new Act red with section 43(2)(rr) was pending about the death of Shri H.L Soni.
On 23rd of March, 1979 respondent No. 1 moved an application for substitution in Case No. 53 of 1978 for bringing on record the heirs of deceased Shri H.L. Soni along with application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
On 10th of November, 1979, the Prescribed Authority rejected the petitioners application for substitution and held that respondent No. 1 had full knowledge of the death of Shri H.L. Soni and he did not move the application within time.
On 11th of December, 1979 respondent No. 1 moved a second application under section 2 1(1)(a) read with section 43(2)(rr) of the new Act on the same ground on which the first application was moved.
The second application was registered as Case No. 68 of 1979.
It is alleged further that on 12th of March, 1981 respondent No. 1 executed two separate agreements to sell the property in dispute in favour of R.P. Kanodia and P.K. Kanodia respectively.
The Prescribed Authority on 7th of July, 198 1 held that the second application under section 2 1(1)(a) read with section 43(2)(rr) of the new Act being Case No. 68 of 1979 was within time and directed the tenant to be evicted from the premises in dispute.
The Additional District Judge, Allahabad on 25th of October, 1982 dismissed the appeal of the tenant filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 7th of July, 1981.
On 11th of March, 1983 the appellant 's wife Smt.
Madhu Soni filed a suit for injunction restraining Respondent No. 1 from dispossessing her from the premises in dispute on the strength of registered agreement and she asserted that she resided in the accommodation as a result of part performance under section 53A of the .
Initially injunction was granted ex parte by the Trial Court and thereafter it was vacated after hearing respondent No. 1.
Aggrieved thereby an appeal } was filed by Smt.
Madhu Soni in which the High Court had stayed dispossession.
The High Court thereafter dismissed the writ petition of the tenant against the orders of the Prescribed Authority for eviction and the order of the Additional District Judge.
A review petition was filed by the appellant and the same was dismissed.
This appeal by special leave is against that decision of the High Court dated 18th of May, 1983 Behind this long tale of dates the questions involved in this appeal are short, namely, firstly in view of the provisions of section 43(2)(rr) was the High Court right, in the facts and circumstances of the case specially the death of original tenant being alleged, and in view of the fact that the execution of the order passed for eviction had 623 become final before coming into operation of the new Act the order was proper and secondly, how far the subsequent events, namely, the A agreement with the wife of one of the sons of the original tenant to purchase property as well as the agreement with the Kanodias mentioned hereinbefore demolish or destroy the case of a bona fide need of the landlord.
In other words are these not sufficient subsequent events which destroy the landlord 's bona fide need and as such should be taken note of by the appropriate courts in ordering eviction.
In this appeal, therefore, we have to keep in mind two aspects of law namely, the finality of the decisions and secondly, how far and to what extent subsequent events should be taken note of in order to do justice between the parties.
Before we refer to the judgment of the High Court and the submissions made before us, it is necessary for us to bear in mind certain decisions of this Court on these aspects on which reliance was placed.
This Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor & General Traders, ; dealing with the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, dealt with the question as to how far the subsequent events can be taken note of.
This Court held that for making the right or remedy, claimed by a party justly and meaningfully as also legally and factually in accordance with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.
In the facts of that case, this Court said that the High Court was right in taking into consideration the facts which came into being subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings.
Therefore the fact that in determining what justice required the Court was bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which had supervened since the judgment was given.
F This general principle and proposition of law was of ancient vintage.
See the observations of the U.S. Supreme Court in Pattersion vs State of Alabama, ; at page 607).
The actual facts, however, of this case were entirely different, and so it was not necessary to refer to those facts.
In Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. vs Invest Import, ; , this principle was again reiterated entirely under different context.
This Court also reiterated the same principle in Hasmat Rai and another vs Raghunath Prasad; , where referring to Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor and General Traders (supra), this Court held that when an action was brought by the landlord under Rent Restriction Act for eviction on the H 624 ground of personal requirement, his need must not only be shown to A exist at the date of the suit, but must exist on the date of appellate decree, or the date when a higher court dealt with the matter.
It was emphasised by this Court that if during the progress and passage of proceeding from court to court subsequent events had occurred which if noticed would non suit the plaintiff, the court had to examine and evaluate the same and mould the decree accordingly.
The tenant was entitled to show that the need or requirement no more existed by pointing out such subsequent events, to the court including the appellate court.
Otherwise the landlord would derive an unfair advantage, and it would be against the spirit or intendment of Rent Restriction Act which was enacted to fetter the unfettered right of re entry.
In such a situation, it was reiterated that, it would be incorrect to say that as the decree or order for eviction was passed against the tenant he could not invite the court to take into consideration subsequent events.
But the tenant could be precluded from so contending when decree or order for eviction had become final.
(Emphasis supplied see the observations of Desai, J. at page 617(G.H) of the report).
In Syed Asadullah Kazmi vs The Addl.
District Judge, Allahabad and others; , , this Court was concerned with a residence at Allahabad.
It was held by this Court that the order dated 25th March, 1977 of the appellate authority releasing a portion of the premises in favour of the third respondent therein and leaving the remaining portion in the tenancy of the appellant therein acquired finality when the proceedings taken against it by the appellant had failed.
The Prescribed Authority was bound to give effect to that final order and was not acting outside its jurisdiction or contrary to law where he ordered eviction.
This Court reiterated that it was true that subsequent events had to be taken into account by a statutory authority or court when considering proceeding arising out of a landlord 's petition for ejectment of a tenant on the ground of the landlord 's personal need.
But in that case the order for release of a portion of the accommodation had acquired finality before the death of the landlord and the controversy concluded by it could not be reopened thereafter.
This Court further reiterated that inasmuch as the question which arose before the Prescribed Authority on the application of the appellant after the proceedings for release had acquired finality, it was not open even for this Court to reopen the proceeding for release.
Not quite relevant to the present controversy, there is, however, just an observation in Sher Singh & Ors.
vs The State of Punjab; , It was a decision dealing with Article 21 of the Constitution.
There is an observation that traditionally, subsequent events had to be taken into account in the area of civil law.
It is necessary, however, to refer to a 625 decision of the special bench of the Allahabad high Court in Bansilal Sahu vs The Prescribed Authority and another, [ 19801 ALL.
L.J. 331 which arose under the new Act.
It was held therein that the question whether the eviction of the tenant had to be ordered from any specified part of the building under tenancy was not within the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority, while acting under clause (rr) of section 43(2), irrespective of the occurrence of subsequent events which might make it improper to order the eviction from the entire building or which might tend to establish that the need set up by the landlord could be satisfied by ordering eviction of the tenant from a specified part of the building under tenancy.
It was held that subsequent events or facts could not be considered so as to defeat the final order and the Prescribed Authority was bound to order eviction.
The Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court overruled another Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt.
Sarju Devi vs Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, [19771 All.
L.J. 251 and accepted the proposition laid down in Tara Chand Khandelwal vs Prescribed Authority, Agra, [1976] All L.J. 708.
Satish Chandra, C.J. speaking for the Allahabad High Court observed that the opening clause of this provision entitled the Prescribed Authority to find out whether permission under section 3 of the old Act had been obtained on any ground specified in subsection (1) or sub section (2) of section 21 of the present Act and that the same had become final.
It was, therefore, according to the Chief Justice, the beginning as well as the end of his jurisdiction to record findings.
If the conclusion was in the affirmative the Prescribed Authority had no discretion but to order the eviction of the tenant from the building under tenancy.
It was further held that the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority was to order the eviction of the tenant from the building under tenancy.
It had not expressly been conferred any power to order eviction from a portion or part of the building under tenancy.
It was further held that the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority while deciding an application under section 2 1 of the present Act could not be equated with the jurisdiction which had been conferred for giving effect to the permission granted under section 3 of the old Act.
The two situations were different.
Clause (rr) of section 43(2) of the present Act specifically prohibited the Prescribed Authority from satisfying itself afresh that the grounds existed.
We are of the opinion that this is the correct state of law and if that is the position the so called subsequent events are not germane to the question to be decided by the High Court.
In the aforesaid light, in our opinion, in the facts of this case the High Court was right.
626 It may be mentioned that clause (rr) of section 43(2) of the new Act provides as follows: "where any permission referred to in Section 3 of the old Act has been obtained on any ground specified in sub section (1) or sub section (2) of section 21 and has become final, either before the commencement of this Act or in accordance with the provisions of this sub section after the commencement of this Act (whether or not a suit for the eviction of the tenant has been instituted), the landlord may apply to the prescribed authority for his eviction under section 21, and thereupon the prescribed authority shall order the eviction of the tenant from the building under tenancy, and it shall not be necessary for prescribed authority to satisfy itself afresh as to the existence of any ground as aforesaid, and such order shall be final and shall not be open to appeal under section 22: Provided that no application under this clause shall be maintainable on the basis of a permission granted under section 3 of the old Act, where such permission became final more than three years before the commencement of this Act: Provided further that in computing the period of three years, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence any civil proceeding whether in a court of first instance or appeal or revision shall be excluded" All these aspects were considered by the High Court.
We recognise that unless the statute expressly prohibits as it did in the instant case, by the aforesaid clause, cautious recognition of subsequent events to mould the relief should be taken note of.
In the instant case in substance the need was there of the landlord for his occupation of his own premises.
The landlord was a Government servant and wanted to reside in Allahabad and for this purpose he sought eviction and had obtained an order of eviction prior to coming into operation of the new Act.
The hope of the landlord to come back to his origin was not defeated by the provisions of the new Act.
In vain he moved from court to court and in the meantime there has been escalation of prices and restrictions on alienation of land and in order to save himself from this situation the landlord tried to sell part of the premises in question 627 subsequent to the decree to the wife of one of the sons of the tenant.
This is not material.
The agreement in question further stipulated that the present need of the landlord subsisted, and out of this agreement only Rs.5,000 was advanced in 1978 and nothing was paid thereafter.
The agreement for sale to Smt.
Madhu Soni reads as follows: "That it is made clear that the need of the vendor for the premises still subsists and this agreement is being entered into since it will be possible for the vendor to construct a house for himself on the land not agreed to be transferred measuring 121 ' x 101.5 '.
The parties, therefore, have signed this Deed on the 7th day of November, 1978 In view of the subsequent events, namely, non permission of the Urban Ceiling Authorities, failure to register and execute the document, delay for permission on the part of the vendee and the escalation of prices, that is to say, if in 1979 perhaps it was possible to build some kind of accommodation with the amount of sale price to be obtained from the execution of the document which it is not possible in 1987 and further there is no readiness or willingness on the part of the vendee to execute the document, after the existence of the basic need of the landlord, for which originally the proceedings were taken and finalised, we do not find it possible to hold that subsequent events have so materially altered as to defeat the original order for possession passed in favour of the respondents.
We do not find perusing the records that there was any failure for substitution on the part of the landlord to take steps.
The other son of the deceased was not residing with the deceased in the premises in question, therefore, there was no need to substitute him.
The other agreements to which reference had been made was the alleged agreement with R.P. Kanodia and P.K. Kanodia respectively.
Nothing was proved before us that agreement is valid today or given effect to in view of the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act.
It may be mentioned that the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 by the order dated 20th of April, 1979 refused permission to sell in favour of Smt.
Madhu Soni.
On 7th November, 1978 the wife of the appellant and the landlord had entered into an agreement to sell a portion of the land as well as the house in dispute to the appellant 's wife, and for that purpose a sum of 628 Rs.5,000 had been paid as earnest money as mentioned hereinbefore, A and in the agreement, it was clearly stated that the parties would move the proper authorities as early as possible for permission to transfer the property and the sale deed would be executed within one month of the grant of such permission and notice to the vendee.
Clause 6 of the agreement further stipulated that if the vendee failed to get the agreement executed after one month from the date of permission and notice to the vendee the earnest money of Rs.5,000 would be forfeited and the right of the vendor will be as it subsisted prior to the agreement.
The requisite permission in terms of the agreement was obtained by the landlord in the year 1979 and a registered notice consequently was also sent to the appellant 's wife requiring her to get the sale deed executed in accordance with the agreement.
Thereafter a reply dated 2 1st September, 1979 was also received by the landlord.
However, the appellant 's wife failed to get the sale deed executed and consequently the agreement itself became infructuous and the earnest money stood forefeited.
The need as it has been reiterated in the agreement of the landlord for his own purpose still subsisted.
There was no delay in bringing the heirs of the deceased tenant on record.
In the aforesaid view of the matter there was no substance in the objection filed against the execution of the order of eviction in terms of clause (rr) of section 43(2) of the new Act.
In any event such events were frivolous after the order had become final.
The subsequent events which we have examined do not in any way effect the decision of need for possession of the premises in question of the respondent landlord.
It may be mentioned that there was an application by the respondent for the review.
This was heard and no order was made on that application.
It was reiterated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that since 1st of December, 1978 till todate the appellant had not paid any money to the landlord nor deposited the damages in the court.
At the time of his death late H.L. Soni was residing in the house in dispute with his eldest son Shri D.K. Soni, the appellant, his wife, Smt.
Madhu Soni and Mrs. Kailash Soni, the widow.
Other son Shri A.K. Soni and daughter Mrs. Kangan Khanna were not residing with Late Shri H.L. Soni at the time of his death and as such they were not heirs as contemplated by section 3(g) of the new Act.
The landlord was a Government servant and was posted at Lucknow and as such during his tenure he had to reside at Lucknow but after his retirement he wanted to settle down at his ancestral house at Allahabad and it was for this reason that the proceedings for eviction were taken.
629 It was not proved to the satisfaction of the authorities below that any agreement to sell the premises to Kanodias has been given effect to and had been acted upon or can be acted upon.
It that view of the matter the need indubitably succeeds and even if the allegations made are taken into consideration do not merit any revision of the order which had become final.
Finality of the judicial decisions is one of the essential ingredients upon which the administration of justice must rest.
In that view of the matter we are of the opinion, even if the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents are taken into consideration and a new look is taken because of the subsequent events, which in our opinion cannot be done in view of the specific prohibition in clause (rr) of section 43(2) of the new Act, the appellant hac no case.
In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in not interfering with the order of the Prescribed Authority.
After all finality of the decisions of the authorities under the Act has to be given due reverence and place in the judicial administration.
Taking cautious note of the relevant subsequent events, we find no merit in the appellant 's contentions inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that the landlord 's bona fide need for his residence in Allahabad has been met or can be met in the state of affairs except by the order which is impugned in this appeal.
In the premises, the appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
Since, however, the appellant has been staying in the disputed premises for quite some time, we grant time till 30th of April, 1988 to deliver vacant possession of the premises subject to filing usual undertaking within four weeks from today.
In default in filing undertaking the order would become executable forthwith.
S.L. Appeal dismissed.

summary:
% Respondent No. 1, Shri P.K. Mukerjee, filed an application under the U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 (Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act) (OLD Act), seeking permission to file a suit for eviction of his tenant, Harbans Lal Soni, the father of the appellant, D.K. Soni, on the grounds of his bona fide requirement for his personal need.
The Rent Control and Eviction officer rejected the application, holding that the respondent 's requirement was not bona fide.
A revision was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Commissioner who allowed the same.
The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (new Act) came into effect on July 15, 1972.
On August 2, 1972, the State Government rejected the representation of the tenant (father of the appellant) filed under section 7 of the old Act against the order of the Commissioner aforementioned.
The tenant then moved a writ petition in the High Court.
A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the abovesaid orders of the Commissioner and the State Government.
Upon an appeal being filed by the respondent (No. 1) against the order of the Single Judge, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the same, setting aside the order of the Single Judge and upholding the above said orders of the commissioner and the State Government, allowing the eviction of the tenant.
In September, 1978, the respondent No. 1 moved an application under section 21, read with section 43(2)(rr) of the new Act.
Thereafter, the respondent executed an agreement as vendor to sell the permises in dispute in favour of the vendee, the wife of the appellant, Smt.
Madhu Soni daughter in law of the tenant, Harbans Lal.
The agreement was dated November 7, 1978, and it mentioned therein that the landlord, respondent No. 1 had filed an application against the tenant above 617 named.
The father in law of the vendee for permission to file a suit for eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute on account of the respondent 's personal need, and that the permission had been granted.
The agreement recited that a vacant portion of the land of the disputed premises, would be in the exclusive possession of the vendor and the rest of the property the disputed premises would be sold to the vendee, Smt.
Madhu Soni.
The agreement stipulated that the vendee or the other members of the family had no right over the portion of the land to be kept with the vendor, and that the appellant had given up his tenancy rights in respect of the same, and also that premises would be built on the said vacant land with the money to be obtained by selling the disputed house to Smt.
Madhu Soni.
The price of the house was settled at Rs.1,00,000 out of which a sum of Rs.5000 was paid as earnest money, and it was stipulated that the rest of the amount would be paid at the time of registration.
It was agreed that the parties would move the authorities for permission to transfer as early as possible and the saledeed would be executed within one month of the grant of permission and notice to the vendee.
It was stated that if the vendee failed to get the sale deed executed within the time stipulated, the earnest money of Rs.5000 would be forfeited and the property would stand released in favour of the vendor.
It was also stipulated that the need of the vendor for the premises subsisted and the agreement had been entered into to enable the vendor to get money out of the sale to construct a house for himself on the vacant piece of land.
On December 12, 1978, the father of the appellant, who was the tenant, died, leaving behind a widow, two sons, including the appellant, and a daughter.
On December 22, 1978, the appellant informed the Prescribed Authority before whom the application under section 21(1)(a) of the New Act, read with section 43(2)(rr), was pending, about the death of the tenant, Shri Harbans Lal Soni.
On March 23, 1979, the respondent No. 1 filed an application (in Case No. 53 of 1978) for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant, along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The Prescribed Authority rejected the application for substitution on grounds of delay.
On December 11, 1979, the respondent No. 1 moved a second application under section 21(1)(a), read with section 43(2)(rr) of the new Act (on the ground as in his earlier application), which was registered as Case No. 68 of 1979.
On March 12, 1981, the respondent No. 1 executed two separate agreements for sale of the property in dispute, in favour of R.P. Kanodia and P.K. Kanodia, respectively.
618 The Prescribed Authority decided the Case No. 68 of 1979 abovementioned on July 7, 1981, directing the tenant to be evicted from the premises in dispute.
The Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal against the order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority.
On March 11, 1983, the appellant 's wife, Smt.
Madhu Soni filed a suit for injunction, restraining the respondent No. 1 from dispossessing her from the premises in dispute on the strength of the registered agreement, asserting that she resided in the premises in part performance of the agreement under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
The trial Court dismissed the suit.
The High Court was then moved for relief by a writ petition against the orders of the Prescribed Authority for eviction and the order of the Additional District Judge.
The writ petition was dismissed, followed by the dismissal of a Review Petition too.
Aggrieved thereby the appellant has appealed to this Court by special leave.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, ^ HELD: The questions involved in the appeal are: Firstly, in view of the provisions of section 43(2)(rr), was the High Court right in its decision, in the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the factum of the death of the (original) tenant being alleged, and in view of the fact that the execution of the order for eviction had become final before the new Act came into operation? Secondly, how far do the subsequent events, namely, the agreements by the respondent No. 1 with the wife of one of the sons of the tenant and with the Kanodias to sell the property in dispute, demolish or destroy the case of a bona fide need of the landlord? [622G H; 623A] In substance, the need was there of the landlord for his occupation of his premises as he wanted to reside in his house after his retirement from Government service, and for this purpose he had sought eviction and obtained the order of eviction prior to the coming into operation of the new Act.
The object of the landlord was not defeated by the provisions of the New Act.
[626G H] Considering the subsequent events, namely, the refusal of permission by the Urban Ceiling Authorities, the escalation of building cost (upto 1987), failure on the part of the vendee to register and execute the document, it is not possible to hold that the subsequent events have so materially altered the position as to defeat the original order for possession passed in favour of the landlord.
The subsequent events do not in 619 any way affect the existence of the need of the landlord for possession of premises in question.
[627C E] There was no failure on the part of the landlord to take steps for the substitution.
Nothing was proved before the Court that the agreements with R.P. Kanodia and P.K. Kanodia were valid today or given effect to in view of the provision of the Land ceiling Act.
It was not proved to the satisfaction of the authorities below that any agreement to sell the premises to Kanodias had been given effect to and acted upon and in that view of the matter, the need of the landlord indubitably succeeds, and any allegations made do not merit any revision of the order which had become final.
Finality of the judicial decisions is one of the essential ingredients upon which the administration of justice must rest.
In that view of the matter, even if the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents are taken into consideration and a new look is taken because of the subsequent events, which cannot be done in view of the specific provisions in clause (rr) of section 43(2) of the new Act, the appellant has no case.
The High Court was right in not interfering with the order of the Prescribed Authority.
Finality of the decisions of the authorities under the Act has to be given due reverence and place in the judicial administration.
[629A C] The appeal fails.
As the appellant had been staying in the premises for quite some time, time till April 30, 1988 granted to him to deliver vacant possession of the house to the landlord, subject to his filing usual undertaking within four weeks.
[629E F] Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The motor and general Traders; , ; Pattersion vs State of Alabama, ; at 607; Ramji Dayawala and Sons(P) Ltd. vs Invest Import; , ; Hasmat Rai and Anr.
vs Raghunath Prasad; , ; Syed Asadullah Kazmi vs The Addl.
District Judge, Allahabad and Ors.
, ; ; Sher Singh and Ors.
vs The State of Punjab, ; ; Bansilal Sahu vs The Prescribed Authority and Anr, [1980] All L.J. 331; Smt.
Sarju Devi vs Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, [1977] All L.J. 251 and Tara Chand Khandelwal vs Prescribed Authority, Agra, [1976] All L.J. 708, referred to.