Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Having been deprived of the right to use his own land for more than 25 years, Bhikhubhai Vithalbhai Patel is a much relieved man now with the Supreme Court coming to his rescue recently and slamming the Gujarat Government for misusing the statutory provisions that enables it to impose restrictions on people’s right to use their own land.
According to Patel, the Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA), in its Draft Development Plan, had included his land in the residential zone. But the state Government, while sanctioning the Plan on January 31, 1986 earmarked the said piece of land for the educational complex of South Gujarat University.
Finding illegality in the Government’s move to re-reserve the land and authorise it for educational use, the apex court said the decision was “ultra vires” and “void”.
Observing that Patel has been deprived of his right to use his own land for residential purposes for more than a quarter century, a Bench comprising Justices S H Kapadia and B Sudershan Reddy said that statutory provisions enabling the state or its authorities to impose restrictions on the right to use one’s own land are required to be carefully dealt with.
Passing some stinging remarks, the Bench reminded the Government how powers of public authority are essentially different from those enjoyed by an individual.
“A man making his Will may, subject to any rights of his dependents, dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law this does not affect his right to exercise his power. He has the right to release a debtor, or, where the law permits, evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is an unfettered discretion. But a public authority may do none of these things,” the court observed.
The whole concept of unfettered discretion is inappropriate to a public authority, which possesses powers solely in order that it may use them for the public good.
