BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

AT NEW DELHI

Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No._____/2017

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

RAMBOLE YADAV.APPELLANT

Versus

LAND SETTLEMENT AND DISPUTE BOARD (LSDB)

..RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SUBMITTED BY:

VISHAKHA RAJGARHIA

SEMESTER VI A

ROLL NO. 417

0|Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ABBREVIATIONS..2
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES3
3. LIST OF CASES..4
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....7
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS...8
6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES...9
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.....10
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.11
9. PRAYER..17

1|Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 ABBREVIATIONS

1. &...And
2. AIR.....All India Reporter
3. CPCThe Code of Civil Procedure
4. SCSupreme Court
5. SCC....Supreme Court Cases
6. v....Versus
7. volVolume
8. AllAllahabad
9. BomBombay
10. SCR.Supreme Court Report
11. Del...Delhi
12. Mad...Madras

2|Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES:
Constitution of India, 1950
Jharkhand Land Acquisition and Disputes Act, 2003
Bihar Land Holdings and Ceiling Act, 1989

BOOKS:
Jain, M.P., Administrative Law (6th Ed., 2010, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhawa,
Nagpur)
Massey, I. P., Administrative Law (8th Ed., 2011, Eastern Book Company, Allahbad)
Takwani, C. K., Administrative Law (8th Ed., 2012, Eastern Book Company, Allahbad)
Jain, M.P, Indian Constitutional Law, ( 16th ed., 2011 Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa
Nagpur)

WEBSITES REFERRED:
www.manupatra.com
scconline.ac.in

3|Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 LIST OF CASES

Serial NAME OF THE CASE CITATION PAGE

No. NO.

01 Abraham Kuruvila v. S.C.T. (2005) 9 SCC 49 13

Institute of medical sciences
& Technology

02 Amarchand Sobhachand v. (1971) AIR 720 (SC) 12

CIT

03 Ashok kumar Gupta v. State (97) 5 SCC 201 16

of U.P

04 CIT v. Maganlal Chaganlal (1997) 11 SCC 557 (SC) 12

(P) Ltd.

05 CIT v. Orissa Corp ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 0078 (SC) 12

06 Council of Scientific and 11

Industrial Research v. K. G. (1989) AIR 1972 (SC)

S. Bhatt

07 Deepika Choudhary v. 64 (1996) DLT 503 16

University of Delhi

08 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills (1955) AIR 65 (SC) 12

Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal

09 Gurbakhsh Singh v State of (1955) AIR 320 (SC) 12

Punjab

10 Gwalior Rayon Silk v. CST (1974) 4 SCC 98 14

11 Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther (1988) 1 SCR 1079 15

v. Kerala Financial Corp.

4|Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
12 Indira Sahwney v. U.O.I. AIR 1993 SC 477 15

13 Jyoti Prasad v. Union AIR 1961 SC 1602 14

Territory of Delhi

14 Kerala SEB v. Indian (1976) I SCC 466 13

Aluminium Co. Ltd

15 Maharashtra State Board v. (1984) 4 SCC 27 16

Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth

16 ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai (2005) 6 SCC 454 (SC) 12

Vastram Patel

17 Paramanand Katara v. AIR 1989 SC 2039 16

Union of India

18 Shri Sachidanand Pandey. v. AIR 1987 SC 1109 15

The State Of West Bengal
19

20 St. Johns Teachers Training 13

Institute v. National Council (2003) 3 SCC 321
for Teachers Education

21 State of rajasthan v. ram (2005) 5 SCC 151 13

Chandra

22 State of U.P. v. Mohd. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 669 13

Waqar Hussain

23 Stellar Investments v. CIT, (2000) 164 CTR 287(SC) 12

24 Udai Ram Sharma v. Union 1968 SCR (3) 41 14

Of India

25 Union of India v Rajeshwari (1986) 161 ITR 60 (SC) 12

& Co.

5|Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
26 Union of India v. Vijay 1997 (1) scale (SP) 24 13
Kumar Garg

27 Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT, (2010) 236 CTR 454 (SC) 12

Delhi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

6|Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
The Counsel for respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Honble Supreme Court
under Article 1361 of the Constitution of India, 1950 to hear the present matter and adjudge
accordingly.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. BACKGROUND
1 136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal
from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or
tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court
or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

7|Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
After the formation of state of Jharkhand, the price of lands has suddenly grown up and there is
rapid increase in the number the real estate businesses at Ranchi and major towns of the state.
But there were some age old land laws which prohibit selling and buying of tribal lands within
the territory of state from British period. In the meantime the state legislature has established one
Land Settlement and Dispute Board (LSDB) under Jharkhand Land Acquisition and Disputes
Act, 2003 to adjudicate and monitor and regulate all the land disputes and any matter connected
with land and incidental to land.

II. FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE

In 2010, the state legislature enhanced the ceiling of land through one amendment with
retrospective effect from 2000.
In 2012 state government decided to purchase land for establishing one large airport and
aerodrome adjacent of Ranchi. There were several applications for tender of land relating to
purchase of land for said project and Land Ministry vested the power to LSDB to decide.
In 13th September 2012, one villager of Ramgarh area Rambole Yadav who also applied for
through tender filed one writ petition before High Court alleging that Board has given the
decision out of bias with nepotism and favoritism and also said that establishment of board
itself illegal.
High Court rejected the petition as Board was properly constituted and through public tender
land was purchased by government and establishment of airport was a part of economic
policy framing where court would not interfere.

-HENCE THE PRESENT APPEAL-

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

8|Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
1. WHETHER THE PRESENT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

1.1. NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE

1.2. INFERENCE FROM A FACT NOT TENABLE AND HENCE NOT OPEN TO REVIEW

2. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED BOARD IS OUT OF BIAS WITH NEPOTISM

AND FAVORITISM OR NOT?

2.1. ABSENCE OF EXCESSIVE DELEGATION

2.2. RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION IS VALID

2.3. THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IS NOT OUT OF BIAS WITH NEPOTISM AND FAVORITISM
2.4. NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION
2.5. NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

9|Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
1. WHETHER THE PRESENT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is most humbly contented before this Honble court that the present petition is not
maintainable. The Apex Court has emphasized that Art. 136 of the Constitution do not confer a
right of appeal on a party aggrieved by the, decision of a High Court: it merely confers on this
Court a discretionary power to interfere in suitable cases. The present circumstance does not give
rise to a suitable case. Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has been done
and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be maintainable. Also in the present
case, no substantial question of law is involved and interference is based on pure question of fact
which is entitled to be dismissed.

2. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED BOARD IS OUT OF BIAS WITH NEPOTISM

AND FAVORITISM OR NOT?

It is most humbly contented before this Honble court that the order passed by the learned board
is not out of bias with nepotism and favoritism. In the present matter, the State government had
sold the land by inviting tenders not only to get the highest price for the property by also to
ensure that the procedure has been fairly carried out. Therefore, the decision of the board was not
out of bias with nepotism or favoritism rather reasonable and on equitable grounds. Further, the
state is duty bound to provide employment opportunities and economic empowerment for its
citizens. The Airport project not only provides citizens to travel conveniently, it helps in the
development of the economy as well.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

10 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 ISSUE ONE

1. THAT THE PRESENT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

It is most humbly submitted before this Honble Supreme Court of India that the special leave
petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when
substantial justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be
maintainable [1.1]. Also in the present case, no substantial question of law is involved and
interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed [1.2].

1.1. NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE.

1. It is contended by the respondent that the appellant must show that exceptional and special
circumstances exists and that if there is no interference, substantial and grave injustice will result
and the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of the decision appealed against
on merits. Only then the court would exercise its overriding powers under Art. 136. 2 Special leave
will not be granted when there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is done, though
the decision suffers from some legal errors.3
2. In the case at hand, no exceptional and special circumstances have been shown by the appellant.
The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to
tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award
the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such
decisions are made qualitatively by experts. Further, public tender land was purchased by
government and establishment of airport was a part of economic policy framing where court
would not interfere. This shows that the law is well-settled in this regard and the present case is
not an exception.
3. It was also observed that, it is not possible to define the limitations on the exercise of the
discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Art. 136. It being an exceptional and
overriding power, naturally, has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in special and

2 M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, ( 16th ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Nagpur 2011)
3 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v K. G. S. Bhatt (1989) AIR 1972 (SC)

11 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 extraordinary situations.4 Article 136 does not give a right to a party to appeal to the SC rather it
confers a wide discretionary power on the SC to interfere in suitable cases.5
1.2. INFERENCE FROM A FACT NOT TENABLE AND HENCE NOT OPEN TO REVIEW.
4. It is contended by the Respondent that the appeal doesnt involve any substantial question of law
rather it involves pure question of fact and hence, is not maintainable. Questions of fact cannot be
permitted to be raised unless there is material evidence which has been ignored by the high court
or the finding reached by the court is perverse.6 In a case it was held that the SC cannot
consistently with its practice convert itself into a third court of facts.7
5. Generally on finding of fact, no interference will be made. 8 Even in cases where conclusions are
reached without proper discussion, yet if it involves finding on fact, no interference of SC is
called for.9 In a case, it was held that if the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a
conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arise. 10 Even in case of Stellar
Investments v CIT11 , SC had held that it is a pure question of fact and when Tribunal comes to a
conclusion after Judge applies his mind to the facts of the case, and then SC interference is
uncalled for.
6. In the case in hand, simply because the order of the tribunal is not elaborate or non-speaking in
the view of the petitioner doesnt mean it is based on bias or nepotism or favoritism, it doesnt
render the appeal maintainable under Article 136.
7. The Tribunal/Board being a final fact finding authority, in the absence of demonstrated perversity
in its finding, interference therewith by this Court is not warranted.12 It is now well-settled that the
superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 136 may not exercise the same in
appropriate cases.13
8. Hence, it is humbly submitted that in the light of the above mentioned authorities, the impugned
order of the High court deserves to be affirmed and HC didnt err in dismissing the appellants
appeal holding that no substantial question of law is involved.

4 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal, (1955) AIR 65 (SC)
5 ibid.
6 Union of India v Rajeshwari & Co., (1986) 161 ITR 60 (SC)
7 Gurbakhsh Singh v State of Punjab, (1955) AIR 320 (SC)
8 CIT v. Maganlal Chaganlal (P) Ltd., (1997) 11 SCC 557 (SC)
9 Amarchand Sobhachand v. CIT, (1971) AIR 720 (SC)
10 CIT v. Orissa Corp ltd., (1986) 159 ITR 0078 (SC)
11 Stellar Investments v. CIT, (2000) 164 CTR 287(SC)
12 Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT, Delhi (2010) 236 CTR 454 (SC)
13 ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel (2005) 6 SCC 454 (SC)

12 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE

LEARNED BOARD IS NOT OUT OF BIAS WITH NEPOTISM AND FAVORITISM.

9. It is most humbly submitted before this Honble court that the order passed by the learned board
is not out of bias with nepotism and favoritism.
10. The question of prejudice and bias has to be established and not inferred. 14 Without any reliable
material bias cannot be inferred or arrived at by conjecture.15 The allegation of bias must be
genuine and there must be sufficient material in support thereof.16 Not only factual bias has to be
proved but it must also be shown that the same has been resulted in miscarriage of justice.17
2.1. ABSENCE OF EXCESSIVE DELEGATION
11. In a modern welfare state, governmental activity has pervaded almost every field of human
endeavor, thus, necessitating enactment of multifarious laws to regulate this ever-widening
activity. The legislature does not have enough time to deliberate upon, discuss and approve all the
regulatory measures.
12. The legislature must first discharge its essential legislative functions i.e. laying down the policy
of law and enacting that policy into binding rule of conduct) and then can delegate ancillary or to
fill up the details. When a statute is challenged on the ground of excessive delegation, there is a
presumption in favour of its vires and if two interpretations are possible then the one that makes it
constitutional is to be adopted.18 This is being done in view of the fact that today delegation of
legislative power has become a Compulsive Necessity.
13. In the case of Kerala SEB v. Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd., 19 The validity of the Kerala State
Electricity Supply (Kerala State Electricity Board and Licenses Areas) Surcharge order, 1968 was
in question. The order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Kerala
Essential Articles Control Act, 1961. The purpose of the Act is to provide, in the interest of the
public for the control of the production, supply and distribution of trade and commerce in certain
articles. Section 3 was challenged on the ground of excessive delegation. The court upheld the
constitutionality of Section 3 on the ground that the Act lays sufficient policy to guide the
discretion of the administrative authority.

14 State of rajasthan v. ram Chandra (2005) 5 SCC 151

15 State of U.P. v. Mohd. Waqar Hussain, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 669
16 Union of India v. Vijay Kumar Garg, 1997 (1) scale (SP) 24
17 Abraham Kuruvila v. S.C.T. Institute of medical sciences & Technology, (2005) 9 SCC 49
18 St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. National Council for Teachers Education, (2003) 3 SCC 321
19 Kerala SEB v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., (1976) I SCC 466

13 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
14. Further in the case of Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. co. Ltd. v. CST 20 a new test to determine the
constitutionality of delegated legislation. As long as a legislature can repeal the enabling Act
delegating law-making power, it does not abdicate its legislative function and therefore, the
delegation must be considered as valid.
15. It was held in the case of Jyoti Prasad v. Union Territory of Delhi 21 that so long as the
legislature indicates in the operative provisions of the statute and the policy and purpose of the
enactment, the mere fact that the legislation is skeletal or the fact that a discretion is left to those
entrusted with administering the law, is no basis for a contention that there has been excessive
delegation of legislative power, if the power or discretion has been conferred in a manner which
is legal and constitutional.
16. Indian constitution has entrusted the power to legislate to the elected representatives of the
people so that the power is exercised not only in the name of the people, but by the people. The
rule against excessive delegation of legislative authority is, therefore, a necessary postulate of the
sovereignty of the people.
2.2. RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION IS VALID.
17. The legislature can always legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively subject to the
provisions of the Constitution. Power to make legislation with retrospective effect is a part of
sovereign power. Hence, it is competent for the parliament and state legislatures to make
legislation with retrospective effect within the respective legislative fields as specified in the
constitution.22
18. Here, in the present matter, in 2010, the state legislature enhanced the ceiling of land through one
amendment with retrospective effect from 2000. This was a modification in the Parent Act i.e.
Bihar Land Holdings and Ceiling Act, 1989 and same is valid and enforceable and it is not
prejudicial to the vested rights of an individual.
2.3. THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IS NOT OUT OF BIAS WITH NEPOTISM AND FAVORITISM
19. Apex court in the case of Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. The State of West Bengal 23 held that,
One of the methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered necessary to dispose of
a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the
ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule.
20. Further, court reiterated the same principle in the case of Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala
financial corporation24, The public property owned by the State or by any instrumentality of the
20 Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. co. Ltd. v. CST, (1974) 4 SCC 98
21 Jyoti Prasad v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1961 SC 1602
22 Udai Ram Sharma v. Union Of India, 1968 SCR (3) 41
23 Shri Sachidanand Pandey. v. The State Of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109
24 Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation, (1988) 1 SCR 1079

14 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 State should be generally sold by public auction or by inviting tenders. This Court has been
insisting upon that Rule, not only to get the highest price for the property but also to ensure
fairness in the activities of the State and Public Authorities. They should undoubtedly act fairly.
Their actions should be legitimate. Their dealings should be above board. Their transactions
should be without aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of discrimination. Nothing
should be done by them which give an impression of bias, favoritism or nepotism. Ordinarily
these factors would be absent if the matter is brought to public auction or sale by tenders. That is
why the Court repeatedly stated and reiterated that the State owned properties are required to be
disposed of publicly.
21. Here, in the present matter, the State government had sold the land by inviting tenders not only to
get the highest price for the property by also to ensure that the procedure has been fairly carried
out. Therefore, the decision of the board was not out of bias with nepotism or favoritism rather
reasonable and on equitable grounds.
2.4. NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
22. Article 14 ensures equality before law and equal protection of law. The Principle of equality is
not the uniformity of treatment to all in all respects. It only means that all persons similarly
circumstanced shall be treated alike both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by the
laws. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no
discrimination between one person and another.25 Here, in the present case, a tender offer has
been made by the state government to establish an airport in the state. Tender offer ensures that
there is equality and uniformity of treatment to all. Every citizen or individual were welcome for
the offer. Land Ministry vested the power to LSDB to decide and after all the deliberations an
administrative decision has been taken by the Board.
23. Further, it is important to note that the court cannot strike down an administrative decision on the
ground of unreasonableness merely because the court thinks that it goes farther than is necessary.
Judges cannot substitute their wisdom with the wisdom of the administrative authorities. Unless a
decision is manifestly unjust, capricious, inequitable or partial in operation, it cannot be
invalidated on the basis of unreasonableness.26 The validity of the rules has to be judged by the
generalities of the cases they cover and not by stray instances of errors and irregularities
discovered.27
2.5. NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

25 Indira Sahwney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477

26 Deepika Choudhary v. University of Delhi, 64 (1996) DLT 503
27 Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27

15 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
24. Article 21 occupies a place of pride in the Constitution. The article mandates that no person shall
be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. 28
The State has an obligation to preserve the life and livelihood of every person. That which alone
can make it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component of the right to life. 29
Thus right to travel must be ensured by establishing Airports in the state.
25. Further, the state is duty bound to provide employment opportunities and economic
empowerment30 for its citizens. The Airport project not only provides citizens to travel
conveniently, it helps in the development of the economy as well.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully requested that this Honble Court to adjudge and declare:

1. That the present petition be dismissed.

2. That there has been no excessive delegation of power by the respondent.
3. The decision by Board is not out of bias and nepotism and hence stands.

And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of equity, justice and good conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Sd/
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
28 Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India 364 (14th ed, 2010)
29 Paramanand Katara vs Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039( para 7&8)
30 Ashok kumar Gupta vs State of U.P, (97) 5SCC 201 (para 26)

16 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT