Court’s Decision
The Second Appeal filed by The Catholic Diocese of Gorakhpur was dismissed, with the court awarding exemplary costs and damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs), to be jointly borne by the appellant and the State Government. The court emphasized the need for justice, referencing the legal maxim fiat justitia ruat caelum—”Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” This decision was influenced by the long-standing deprivation of the plaintiff’s property rights.
Facts
The plaintiff, Bhola (now deceased), owned Plot No. 26 in Gorakhpur. The Diocese of Gorakhpur, through a lease deed executed by the State, claimed rights over this land and began constructing a boundary wall. Bhola filed a suit to stop the Diocese from continuing its activities and to declare the lease deed void. The trial court dismissed Bhola’s suit, but the appellate court reversed this, decreeing the suit in his favor.
Issues
Whether the Appellate Court was correct in decreeing the plaintiff’s suit despite his alleged admission of exchanging Plot No. 26 for his land in Plot No. 197.
Whether the lease deed granted to the Diocese by the State for Plot No. 26 was valid.
Whether the plaintiff’s suit was barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence due to the Diocese’s construction and investment in the land.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The Diocese argued that Bhola had relinquished his rights to Plot No. 26 through an application and affidavit to the District Magistrate, following which the State granted a lease to the Diocese for constructing a hospital. The petitioners maintained that the lease was valid and the construction was lawful.
Respondent’s Arguments
The plaintiff’s representatives contended that Bhola never surrendered his rights over Plot No. 26 and that the lease deed was invalid. They asserted that Bhola’s share in Plot No. 197 was never declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and any alleged exchange of Plot No. 26 through an affidavit was not legally recognized.
Analysis of the Law
The court examined the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the Transfer of Property Act, determining that the affidavit and application submitted by Bhola did not constitute a valid legal exchange or transfer of ownership. It held that ownership of immovable property cannot be transferred through mere submission of documents, as required by law.
Precedent Analysis
The court referred to Nagubai Ammal vs. B. Shama Rao and State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram, noting that admissions in legal documents are not conclusive evidence and can be contested. The court further emphasized that mere affidavits do not equate to a valid transfer of property under the law.
Court’s Reasoning
The court rejected the Diocese’s argument that Bhola had relinquished his rights to Plot No. 26. It highlighted the manipulation of documents by the State and the Diocese to deprive Bhola and his legal heirs of their land for over 32 years. The court invoked the legal principle fiat justitia ruat caelum, emphasizing that justice must prevail regardless of the consequences, and applied the doctrine of ex debito justitiae to ensure complete justice.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the Second Appeal and awarded Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs) as exemplary costs and damages, to be paid by the Diocese and the State Government. The amount is to be deposited within three months and released to Bhola’s legal heirs. The court directed the Executing Court to enforce the decree, including the costs, within six months.
