Summary
The Supreme Court upheld Tamil Nadu’s resumption of land allotted to an agricultural horticultural society. The allotment permitted resumption for a public purpose, and the proposed development of sports facilities, horticulture and horticultural research fell within that power. An allegation that the society’s representatives belonged to the political opposition, without substantial supporting material, did not establish mala fides. The State was required to use the land only for the stated public purpose.
Issues
- Whether the land-resumption order was vitiated by political mala fides.
Held
- The land belonged to the State and the allotment authorised resumption either for breach of its conditions or for public purpose. Resumption for the identified public purpose conformed to the allotment. (¶¶ 5, 15–16)
- Political opposition membership alone, without substantial supporting material, supplied no factual or legal foundation for mala fides. No other legal infirmity in the resumption order was shown. (¶ 12–16)
- The State must ensure use only for public purpose. The Division Bench’s disparaging observations were irrelevant to the controversy. (¶ 16–17)
Result
Appeals dismissed; resumption order upheld, with the State to ensure that the land is used only for public purpose.