Ravi S. Dhavan, R.B. Mehrotra, JJ. - (1.) The Allahabad Development Authority, a body corporate, which owes its existence to the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973, has filed the present petition seeking reliefs against the State of U.P. regarding certain land acquisition proceedings. In reference to a large housing colony, which the Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Development Authority) intended to develop, the State of U.P. came to the conclusion that the venture was full of practical, problematical and financial difficulties. Thus, the proceedings for the acquisition of land need to be denotified and possession returned to those from whom it was taken. This impliedly, meant that the Development Authority was to be divested of its rights over the land acquired in pursuance of the notification, which was to be denotified, so as to cease further State action consequential to acquisition proceedings. Publication of the award was one of them. This is the main issue between the Development Authority and the State of U.P. The prayers which have been made in the present petition, are consequential to denotifying the acquisition. The Development Authority, thus, prays that the State of U.P. be put under a writ of mandamus as a restraint, not to denotify the acquisition as a consequence of land acquisition proceedings and instead declare the award.
(2.) What may have aggrieved the Development Authority or its agents or assigns, is also placed on record by a letter dated 19 January, 1993, written by the then Vice-Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority, Mr. Prabhu Nath Misra. A copy of this letter is appended as Annexure-8. It appears that the Vice-Chairman is making out a case in offering an explanation why the land acquisition proceedings must remain as they are ; and taken to ultimate purpose, and further explaining that the action to do denotify the proceeding ought not to be taken. At the close, this letter mentions, as it is addressed to the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, that the construction work at site for the housing colony ought not to be stopped. The submission before the Court is that as the State of U.P., and the Commissioner, Allahabad Division have declined the request of the Vice-Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority, thus, the latte r has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) At the out-set, this Court declares that it has no intention to interfere in this matter which is a matter of policy with the State of U.P. and an issue to the Allahabad Development Authority. The Court is also surprised that a petition could be brought by the Development Authority after the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter relating to M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and another v. Collector of Central Excise, JT 1991 (4) SC 158 in which the Supreme Court had, in no uncertain terms, put an obligation on every Court and Tribunal to demand a clearance from a Committee for bringing a litigation to the Court and, in the absence of such a clearance, not to proceed with the matter. Lest it may have escaped the attention of the Development Authority the decision of the Supreme Court is being reproduced:- 1. We are happy to find that the Cabinet Secretary has taken the appropriate initiative as indicated in our order dated September 11, 1991 and has reported to us that the dispute between the Government Department and the Public Sector Undertaking of the Union of India has been settled. In that view of the matter no further action is necessary on the petition. 2. In this report the Cabinet Secretary has stated : "I would also like to State that the Government respects the views expressed by this Honourable Court and has accepted them that Public Undertakings of Central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigation in Court by spending money on fees on Counsel, Court fees, procedural expenses and wasting public time. It is in this context that the Cabinet Secretariate has issued instructions from time to time to all Departments of the Government of India as well as to public undertakings of the Central Government to the effect that all disputes, regardless of the type, should he resolved amicably by mutual consultation or through the good offices of empowered agencies of the Government or through arbitration and recourse to litigation should be eliminated " 3. We direct that the Government of India shall set up a Committee consisting representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and Public Sector Undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to Court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation, Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of finance in the Committee. Senior Officers only should be nominated so that the Committee would function with status, control and discipline. 4. It shall be the obligation of every court and every tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the Committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with. 5. The Committee shall function under the ultimate control of the Cabinet Secretary but his delegate may look after the matters. This court would expect a quarterly report about the functioning of this system to be furnished to the Registry beginning from 1st January, 1992. 6. Our direction may be communicated to every High Court for information of all the Courts subordinate to them.";