Constitution of India

Article 14 -- East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A – N.R.I. Landlord – Applicability of Punjab Act to Chandigarh by notification – Validity of -- Section 13-B providing for special right in favour of landlords under the category of Non-resident Indians -- Classification of Non-resident Indians, as a separate class of landlords, cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution -- Right to seek eviction on the ground of bonafide need is available to all landlords, only difference in the case of NRIs and certain other specified landlords is that right to contest eviction proceedings is governed by special procedure of requirement of obtaining leave to defend by making out a case under Section 18A of the Act -- Classification is not shown to be irrational -- Same has rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved i.e. providing speedy remedy to non-residents in bonafide need of premises let out to tenants -- Validity of impugned notification, extending the Punjab Act to Union Territory, Chandigarh, upheld. Asha Chawla & others v. Union of India & others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 420 (P&H DB).

Article 14, 226 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 48 – Release of land -- No merit in the contention that there is absolute power of the State or that exercise of discretion by the State cannot be interfered with in exercise of its power of judicial review -- Court can certainly see that the executive acts lawfully, bona fide and within the limits of its power -- If there is an abuse or misuse of power, jurisdiction of this Court can certainly be invoked -- Rule of law has to prevail as it the basic requirement of Article 14 that the State acts fairly, reasonably and in good faith. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).

Article 226 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6,10 – Acquisition of land -- Writ jurisdiction – Limitation -- Writ petition filed 16 years after the award was announced by the Collector, must fail -- It is trite law that delay and laches is one of the important factors which the High Court must bear in mind while exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution -- High Court must refuse to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction and grant relief to the writ petitioner. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 284 (SC).

Article 226 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6 – Acquisition of land – Delay in challenge – Locus standi -- Power of compulsory acquisition has been used fraudulently, all objections concerning delay in challenging acquisition and locus standi are not sustainable as it is well settled that all actions taken fraudulently are vitiated in law. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).

Article 32, 226 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6,10 – Acquisition of land -- Writ jurisdiction – Limitation – In relation to the land acquisition proceedings, the Court should be loathe to encourage stale litigation as the same might hinder projects of public importance – Courts are expected to be very cautious and circumspect about exercising their discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution if there has been inordinate unexplained delay in questioning the validity of acquisition of land. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 284 (SC).