PUNE MUNICIPAL CORP.& ANR. Vs. KAUSARBAG COOP.HSNG SOC.LTD.& ANR.

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894

Tags Land Acquisition

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 3008-3009 of 2010, Judgment Date: Oct 09, 2014

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3008-3009 OF 2010

PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. ... APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

KAUSARBAG COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY. .. RESPONDENT (S)

LTD. & ANR.

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4580 OF 2010

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

The controversy in the present appeals arises out of the claim of the

respondent-writ petitioner, a housing society, to Transferrable Development

Rights (TDR) under the relevant Development Control Regulations (DCR) i.e.

N-2.4 framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

(for short “the MRTP Act”). The said claim has been resisted and rejected

by the Pune Municipal Corporation and the State of Maharashtra, the two

appellants in the appeals under consideration, on the ground that the land

in question was not reserved for a public purpose in the development plan

prepared under the MRTP Act and being shown as an existing garden therein,

the claim to TDR has no legal basis. There are additional grounds for the

rejection, details whereof will be, noticed in the course of the narration

to be made hereinafter. The land in question measured about 3.5 acres and

was covered by Survey No.12 (Part) located at Kohdhava Khurd, Pune. The

view of the High Court being in favour of the respondent (writ petitioner)

society, the Pune Municipal Corporation and the State of Maharashtra have

filed the two appeals in question.

The core fact that emerges from the multitude of collaterals and the

exhaustive pleadings of the parties is that the land in question was shown

by the respondent Society itself in the lay out plan submitted by it to the

Pune Municipal Corporation, as reserved for garden. Acquisition of the said

land was initiated in the year 1982 (28.01.1982) under the provisions of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same was completed in the year 1987

whereafter possession of the land was taken over on 19.02.1987. In the

draft development plan dated 15.09.1982 that was prepared and published

under the provisions of the MRTP Act, which was subsequently approved and

sanctioned on 05.01.1987, the land was shown as an existing garden. The

close proximity of time between the two parallel process is too significant

to be overlooked. While according to the respondent-writ petitioner the

stage and the manner of the inclusion of the land in the development plan

is of no consequence to the issue arising i.e. entitlement to TDR, the

State contends that the land was acquired under a non-development plan

proposal which would not attract the provisions of the MRTP Act.

The High Court took the view that it cannot be understood as to how there

can be a difference between land “which was part of a development plan

reserved by the Government or a part of the development plan submitted by

the petitioner in which the land in question was shown as a garden”. Laying

emphasis on the relevant DCR i.e. N-2.4.17(ii), the High

Court took the view that no such distinction is disclosed therein and going

by the language of the DCR the respondent Society was entitled to TDR as

compensation for the land was not received by it. The High Court also

noticed the various communications brought on record by the respondent-writ

petitioner to show that, at different stages, the authorities of the

Municipal Corporation as well as those of the State of Maharashtra had

unequivocally indicated the entitlement of the respondent-writ petitioner

to Transferable Development Rights. The High Court also held that the

directions contained in Government Order dated 03.02.2007 to be contrary to

DCR N-.2.4.17 which is an instance of exercise of statutory powers under

the MRTP Act. The said G.O. dated 03.02.2007 had excluded the entitlement

to Transferable Development Rights once an award had been made and

possession of the land had been delivered as in the present case.

We have heard Shri V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel and Shri Aniruddha P.

Mayee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Vinod Bobde

and Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of

the respondents.

Assailing the order of the High Court, it is contended on behalf of the

appellants that under Section 126 of the MRTP Act grant of TDR against land

acquired under the Land Acquisition Act is not contemplated and grant of

TDR is permissible only when the land is acquired by agreement and it is

further agreed that in lieu of compensation, TDR will be granted and

accepted. It is argued that grant of TDR is a matter of agreement between

the acquiring authority and the land owner and the authority cannot be

directed to grant TDR if it is not so willing asmuch as a land owner cannot

be compelled to accept TDR in the event he opts to accept compensation for

the land acquired. The concept of TDR was brought in by an amendment to

the MRTP Act in the year 1993 whereas the award for acquisition of the land

of the respondent society was passed in the year 1987 and possession

thereof was taken over on 21.2.1987. It is contended that the respondent

society whose land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act is entitled

to compensation calculated on the market value of the land as on the date

of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was

published in the year 1982. The value of the benefit, if TDR is to be

granted at the present stage, would be grossly disproportionate. Pointing

out the provisions of the Development Control Regulations governing grant

of TDR, it is contended that DCR N-.2.4.1(A) and 2.4.17 are required to be

read harmoniously and not in isolation as has been done by the High Court.

Before DCR N-.2.4.17 can be made applicable, the conditions spelt out under

DCR N-. 2.4.1(A) has to be satisfied, namely, that the land should have

been shown as reserved for a public purpose in the development plan. It is

pointed out that in the present case it was not so done and the land was,

in fact, shown as an existing garden. Therefore, DCR N-.2.4.1(A) is not

applicable thereby ruling out the application of DCR No.2.4.17. It is also

pointed out that the land was acquired under the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act under a non-development plan proposal to which acquisition

the provisions of Section 126 of the MRTP Act will have no application. In

so far as the G.O. dated 03.02.2007 under Section 154 of the MRTP Act is

concerned, the appellants contend that the said G.O. dated 03.02.2007 is no

way amends DCR No.2.4.17 as held by the High Court; rather the said

directions are merely clarificatory and were issued due to large scale

deviations that have taken place in the matter of grant of TDR.

Opposing the aforesaid contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants,

Shri Vinod Bobde and Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsels

appearing on behalf of the respondent - cooperative housing society in the

two separate appeals have submitted that the object of the amendment made

in the year 1993 (14.10.1993) introducing the concept of TDR was to lessen

the financial burden of the State facing the prospect of making payment of

huge compensation money for acquisition of land in connection with the

Development Plan. Learned counsels have pointed out that in the present

case the land was eventually included in the development plan prepared and

approved under the MRTP Act. The manner of inclusion in the development

plan i.e. as an existing garden or as reserved for a garden would not make

any difference to the claim of TDR. It is argued that, though offered, the

respondent had not accepted any compensation and, in fact, had agitated for

higher compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. While

the matter was so pending the concept of TDR came to be introduced in the

Act and in the year 1997 (05.06.1997) the modified DCR N-2.4 was

introduced. The respondent society abandoned the reference made by it for

higher compensation and initiated proceedings challenging the acquisition.

After the said challenge was negatived, the respondent society, in the

year 2003, lodged a claim for grant of TDR under DCR N-2.4.17 (ii) which

though initially was responded favourably was eventually rejected by

placing reliance on the Government Order dated 03.02.2007. It is further

contended that DCR N-.2.4.17 is a stand alone provision and under

clause (ii) of the said DCR the respondent society is entitled to its claim

of TDR under the MRTP Act though the land had been acquired under Land

Acquisition Act. In this regard, it has been specifically pointed out that

possession of the land was taken from the society in the year 1987 which is

within 12 years prior to 30th September, 1993 as contemplated in DCR N-

2.4.17 (ii). Admittedly, no compensation has been received. It is further

submitted that the Government Order dated 03.02.2007 purports to amend the

DCR which cannot be so done without following the procedure prescribed

under Section 37 of the MRTP Act. The fact that in similar circumstances

TDR had been granted to other land owners has also been pointed out by the

learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent housing society.

In so far as the provisions of Section 126(1) (a) (b) and (c) of the MRTP

Act is concerned, Shri Vinod Bobde, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent society in C.A. No.3008-3009 of 2010 has submitted that the

availability of TDR to cases of land acquired under the Land Acquisition

Act after invoking the provisions of Section 126(1) (c) of the MRTP Act

will not be open to be raised either by the State or the Municipal

Corporation once the DCR, particularly DCR N-2.4.17 (ii), had been enacted

and brought into force to confer Transferrable Development Rights for land

acquired under the provisions of the aforesaid Section 126(1) (c) of the

Act by following the process laid down in the Land Acquisition Act. Shri

Bobde has pointed out that once Regulations have been framed contemplating

grant of TDR to such land subjected to acquisition under Section 126

(1)(c), the Government cannot turn around and refuse to be bound by its own

norms much less challenge the same. It is further pointed out by Shri

Bobde that any such plea on the part of the State is not competent in law

and the State cannot seek a decision on the validity of its self professed

norms of governance. So long as the DCR remains its full legal effect must

be given effect to.

As the issues raised before us will have to be answered on the basis of the

true and correct purport and effect of the relevant provisions of the MRTP

Act; those of the Development Control Regulation i.e. DCR N-2.4.1(A) and

2.4.17; and the Government Order dated 03.02.2007, the same may be

extracted at the first instance.

Relevant provisions of the MRTP Act

“22. Contents of Development Plan -

A Development plan shall generally indicate the manner in which the

use of land in the area of the Planning Authority shall be regulated, and

also indicate the manner in which the development of land therein shall be

carried out. In particular, it shall provide so far as may be necessary for

all or any of the following matters, that is to say,-

(a)…………..

(b)………....

(c)………….

(d)……………

(e)……………

(f)……………..

(g)……………..

(h)……………..

(i)…………….

(j)………………

(k)……………….

(l)………………….

(m) - provisions for permission to be granted for controlling and

regulating the use and development of land within the jurisdiction of a

local authority including imposition of fees, charges and premium, at such

rate as may be fixed by the State Government or the Planning Authority,

from time to time, for grant of an additional Floor Space Index or for the

special permissions or for the use of discretionary powers under the

relevant Development Control Regulations, and also for imposition of

conditions and restrictions in regard to the open space to be maintained

about buildings, the percentage of building area for a plot, the location,

number, size, height, number of storeys and character of buildings and

density of population allowed in a specified area, the use and purposes to

which buildings or specified areas of land may or may not be appropriated,

the sub-division of plots the discontinuance of objectionable users of land

in any area in reasonable periods, parking space and loading and unloading

space for any building and the sizes of projections and advertisement signs

and boardings and other matters as may be considered necessary for carrying

out the objects of this Act.”

“Section 126. Acquisition of land required for public purposes specified in

plans (1) When after the publication of a draft Regional Plan, a

Development or any other plan or town planning scheme, any land is required

or reserved for any of the public purposes specified in any plan or scheme

under this Act at any time the Planning Authority, Development authority,

or as the case may be,/ any appropriate authority may, except as otherwise

provided in Section 113-A,/ acquire the land –

(a) by an agreement by paying an amount agreed to or,

(b) in lieu of any such amount, by granting the land-owner or the leasee,

subject, however, to the lessee paying the lessor or depositing with the

Planning Authority, Development Authority or Appropriate Authority, as the

case may be, for payment to the lessor, an amount equivalent to the value

of the lessor’s interest to be determined by any of the said Authorities

concerned on the basis of the principles laid down in the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894, Floor Space Index (FSI) or Transferable Development Rights (TDR)

against the area of land surrendered free of cost and free from all

encumbrances, and also further additional Floor Space Index or Transferable

Development Rights against the development or construction of the amenity

on the surrendered land at this cost, as the Final Development Control

Regulations prepared in this behalf provide, or

land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

And the land (together with the amenity, if any, so developed or

constructed) so acquired by agreement or by grant of Floor Space Index or

Additional Floor Space or Transferable Development Rights under this

Section or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the case may be, shall

vest in the Planning Authority, Development Authority, or as the case may

be, any Appellate Authority.”

Government Order dated 03.02.2007

“Maharashtra Regional & Town

Planning Act, 1966

Directive under Section 154

About TDR.

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTGRA

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI – 400 032.

DATED 3rd FEBRUARY, 2007.

ORDER

No. TPS/Sankirna-06/CR-527/06/UD-13:- Whereas the provision of Transferable

Development Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the said TDR”) has been

incorporated in the sanctioned Development Control Regulations (hereinafter

referred to as “the said DCR”) with a view to reduce the financial burden

of acquisition of lands reserved for public purposes in the Development

Plan and for early possession of these lands:

And whereas, sanctioned Development Control Regulations of some

Municipal Corporations contain the provision of rules regarding the said

TDR;

And whereas, sanctioned the said DCR of some Municipal Corporations

also have provision to grant the said TDR for the lands acquired either

under Maharashtra Regional& Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred

to as “the said Act”), Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, Private

Negotiation or any other Act and possession of which has already been

delivered to the Municipal Corporation;

And whereas, it has come to the notice of Government that the rule

regarding the grant of TDR such acquired lands have been misinterpreted and

misused;

And whereas, once the possession is delivered after acquisition the

rights of the owner are transferred to the Planning Authority and the

application by the land owner demanding TDR thereafter can be said to be

made without having any rights in the land;

After considering the facts and circumstances referred to above, in

exercise of the powers conferred under Section 154 of the said Act,

Government is pleased to issue directives to all the Municipal Corporations

as follows:

DIRECTIONS

All the Municipal Corporations which have the provisions regarding

grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for the lands which are

acquired under either the MRTP Act, BPMC Act, Private Negotiation or any

other Act shall initiate modification proposal after following procedure

laid down under Section 37 of the said Act so as to replace the provisions

of this regard by new rules as follows:

NEW RULES:

1) Transferable Development Rights (TDR) shall not be permissible once

an award has been declared under the acquisition process and or the

possession has already been delivered to the Municipal Corporation under

any Act.

2) Municipal Corporation shall punish a notice inviting suggestions and

or objections regarding the modification within sixty days from the date of

issue of this order.

3) After completing the procedure laid down under Section 37(1) of the

said Act Municipal Corporation shall submit the said modification proposal

to the Government for final sanction.

4) Pending the approval to the aforesaid modification the new rule

mentioned hereinabove shall come into force with effect from the date of

issue of this notification.

By order and in the name of

Governor of Maharashtra.

Sd/-

(Nandkishor Patil)

Under Secretary to Government”

Development Control Regulation

“N.2.4.1 (A). The owner (or lessee) of a plot of land which is reserved for

a public purpose, or road construction or road widening in the development

plan and for additional amenities deemed to be reservations provided in

accordance with these Regulations, excepting in the case of an existing or

retention user or to any required compulsory or recreational open space,

shall be eligible for the word of transferable Development Rights (TDRs) in

the form of Floor Space Index (FSI) to the extent and on the condition set

out below. Such award will entitle the owner of the land, to FSI in the

form of a Development Right Certificate (DRC) which be (sic. he) may

use for himself or transfer to any other person.

N-2.4.17. Grant of TDR in cases where lands are under acquisition:

(i) Where Land Acquisition has been declared but request was made for TDR

to the Special Land Acquisition Officer after 30th September 1993 i.e. the

date of publication of these draft Development Control Regulation

containing TDR concept.

(ii) Possession of the land has been delivered without having received

part or full compensation under either the Maharashtra and Town Planning

Act, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, private negotiation or

under any Act for the time being in force within 12 years prior to 30th

September 1993.”

9. Though there is some controversy on the basic facts, there is also

unanimity to show that the acquisition of the land belonging to the

respondent society was initiated by notification dated 28.01.1982 issued

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is also clear that

on completion of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act,

declaration under Section 6 was published on 2.1.1985. Some further facts

on which there is no dispute and therefore would require to be taken note

of, are that the draft revised development plan which was published on

18.9.1982 showed the land as an existing garden and in the final

development plan which was sanctioned on 5.1.1987, the land was again shown

as “existing garden as per approved layout”. The respondent-writ

petitioner, however, contends that the description of the land as an

existing garden is wrong and what should have been mentioned in the

development plan is that the land was proposed for a garden as possession

of the same was still with the respondent-society on the date of

publication of the final development plan i.e. 5.1.1987. Possession of the

land, as noticed, was taken over on 18.2.1987 whereas the award under the

Land Acquisition Act was made on 22.01.1987.

10. Having considered the matter we are of the view that it will not be

necessary for us to consider the aforesaid perspective highlighted by the

respondent society as the controversy over the entitlement to TDR under the

relevant DCR is capable of being resolved on a wholly different basis to

which aspect of the matter we may now turn.

11. The concept of TDR was introduced for the first time in the MRTP Act

in the year 1993 by an amendment of Section 126(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the

MRTP Act. The modalities for grant of TDR were brought into force by the

amended Development Control Regulation (for short ‘DCR’) N-2.4 with effect

from 5.6.1997. In its simplest form, the concept of TDR involves the

surrender of land reserved for various public purposes in the development

plan free of cost and in exchange thereof grant of TDR entitling the holder

thereof to construct a built up area equivalent to the permissible FSI of

the land handed over by him on one or more plots in the zone specified.

Such rights are transferable. The object behind introduction of TDR, as

admitted by the Pune Municipal Corporation in its various publications, was

to meet the situation faced by the Corporation on being called upon to make

payment of over Rs.1500 crores to take over different sites measuring about

600 hectares which had been reserved for different public purposes in the

development plan.

12. Strictly construed it is the provisions of the Section 126 (1)(a)

read with (b) of the MRTP Act, extracted earlier, which contemplate grant

of TDR and that too only against land acquired by agreement as

distinguished from land which is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in

exercise of powers under Section 126(1)(c). The latter kind of acquisition

i.e. under the Land Acquisition Act by invoking Section 126(1)(c) of the

MRTP Act however stands on a footing that is different and distinguishable

from the normal process of acquisition under the same Act i.e. the Land

Acquisition Act. This is because in an acquisition under the Land

Acquisition Act made in exercise of power under section 126(1)(c) of the

MRTP Act, the provisions of Section 4 and Section 5A of the L.A. Act are

dispensed with and straightway a notification under Section 6 is to be

issued. The market value of the land, though sought to be acquired under

the Land Acquisition Act, is pegged to the date of publication of the

interim or draft development plan, as may be, and not to the date of

publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act. The above is a subtle but vital difference between the ordinary and

‘normal’ process of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and the

process of acquisition under the same Act but in exercise of powers under

Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act that needs to be kept in mind.

13. DCR N-2.4.1(A) gives effect to the provisions of Section 126(1)(a)

and (b) brought in by the amendment to the MRTP Act in 1993. It entitles

the owner or a lessee of a plot of land, which is reserved for a public

purpose in the development plan, to the award of TDR in lieu of

compensation upon surrender of the land free of cost. If, DCR No.N-2.4 had

not contemplated any further situations for grant of TDR the argument

advanced on behalf of the appellants would have merited serious

consideration. However, DCR N-2.4.17, extracted above, contemplates two

other situations for grant of TDR. Under DCR N-2.4.17(ii) in situations

where possession of land had been delivered without receipt of part or full

compensation payable under the MRTP Act, Bombay Provincial Municipal

Corporation Act, private negotiations or under any Act and such event had

occurred within 12 years prior to 30.9.1993 (date of publication of the

draft DCR containing the TDR concept) claims for grant of TDR are required

to be entertained. DCR N-2.4.17 extends the frontiers outlined under

Section 126(1)(a) and (c) and makes the grant of TDR applicable to an

extended class of cases wherein acquisition of land is made not only under

the MRTP Act but also under other enactments including the L.A. Act. Such

an extension appears to be in consonance with the object behind the

introduction of the concept of TDR by the amendment of the MRTP Act of

1993. Having regard to the clear language contained in DCR N-2.4.17(ii)

and the object sought to be achieved by the introduction of TDR, we do not

see as to how grant of TDR can be confined only to cases of lands which

have been reserved in the development plan and not to lands acquired under

the Land Acquisition Act which land eventually becomes a part of the

finally approved and sanctioned development plan. The above would also

lead to the conclusion that DCR N-2.4.17 is capable of operating

independently and is not contingent on the existence of the conditions

mentioned in DRC N-2.4.1(A).

14. The matter needs to be viewed from another perspective. The difference

between acquisition under the L.A. Act by resort to the provisions of

Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act and acquisition dehors the said provision

of the MRTP Act has already been noted. If under DCR N-2.4.17, TDR can be

granted in cases of acquisition under the MRTP Act obviously acquisition

under the LA Act upon invocation of Section 126(1)(c) would be included.

In such a situation, reference to any other Act in DCR N-2.4.17 would

include the L.A. Act so as to bring land covered by the normal process of

acquisitions under the L.A. Act within the fold of DCR N-2.4.17. The

acquisition of the land belonging to the respondent society would,

therefore, be clearly covered by the provisions of DCR N-2.4.17.

15. “Making of DCR or amendments thereof are legislative functions.”[1]

The Government Order dated 3.2.2007, though claimed to be clarificatory by

the appellants, really, seeks to prohibit the grant of DCR under DCR N-

2.4.17 so far as lands in respect of which Award under the Land Acquisition

Act had been passed or possession of which has been taken over. This is

contrary to the clear intent behind DCR N-2.4.17. The Government Order

itself acknowledges the necessity of following the procedure prescribed by

Section 37 of the MRTP Act before the aforesaid modification could become

effective. Yet, surprisingly the Government Order goes on to state that,

“Pending approval of the aforesaid modification the new rule mentioned

hereinabove shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of

this notification”. The Government Order in question, having been issued

under Section 154 of the MRTP Act, therefore, cannot override the DCR N-

2.4.17 as the directions under Section 154 of the MRTP Act would be in the

nature of administrative instructions (Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Others

Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another[2]). Admittedly, at the relevant

point of time, the requisite process under Section 37 of the MRTP Act had

not been completed.

16. Underlying the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants is a

fundamental issue that would require a brief mention. The present case

discloses a somewhat disturbing course of action adopted by the State in

seeking to disown and challenge its own professed standards laid down in

the form of a DCR by tangentially contending the same to be incompetent in

law. Such a course of action by the State seeking to depart from its self-

professed norms is neither permissible nor would the Court require to

consider the same. The DCR governing the grant of TDR though may have gone

beyond what is contemplated under the MRTP Act, the State and its

authorities cannot be permitted to request the Court to collaterally

adjudge the validity of the said norms laid down by the State itself. It

is for the State to effect necessary corrections as deemed proper and not

search for an escape valve through a judicial verdict. Such a course of

action is jurisprudentially impermissible. So long as the DCR holds the

field all executive actions must be within the four corners thereof. We can

usefully remind ourselves of the observations of Justice Frankfurter in

Viteralli Vs. Seaton[3] approved in R.D. Shetty Vs. International Airport

Authority[4] :

“An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it

professes its action to be judged. ..Accordingly, if dismissal from

employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the

requirements that bind the agency, that procedure must be scrupulously

observed…This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly

established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural

sword shall perish with the sword.”

17. For the above-stated reasons, the conclusion is obvious. The

rejection of the claim of the respondent Society to TDR under the MRTP Act

read with DCR N-2.4.17 is seriously flawed. We, therefore, set aside the

same; affirm the order dated 15.9.2009 of the Bombay High Court in the writ

petition filed by the respondent Society and consequently dismiss the

appeals filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation and the State of

Maharashtra.

……………………………J.

[RANJAN GOGOI]

..………………..………..J.

[M.Y.EQBAL]

New Delhi;

October 09, 2014.

-----------------------

[1] Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Promoters and Builders

Association and Anr. [(2004) 10 SCC 796]

[2] (2003) 5 SCC 413

[3] 3.L Ed.2d. 1012

[4] (1979) 3 SCC 489

-----------------------

Back to Judgments