 |
Sarnath Lions, The national emblem of India and motto (Text from Sri Aurobindo's transliteration & translation) (Attribution:Chrisi1964, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons) |
The writ petitions filed by Krishna Devanandan at the Madras High Court in March 2024 prayed for the court to
1. Restrain the Auroville Foundation from land exchanges without following the procedures laid down in the Auroville Foundation Rules 1997 and General Financial Rules 2017 and
2. Direct the District Registrar to cancel all land exchanges from 2021 till date.
The case took almost a year, with the final hearings being adjourned 9 times. The hearings concluded on 27th February, and the judgement was delivered on 4th March 2025 by Hon’ble Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, who was assigned the case a month ago, becoming the fourth judge to hear the case.
The AVF Act and Rules cited by the petitioner are for land sale, not exchange.
The judgement rejected the prayer of the petitioner because the Act/Rule of the Auroville Foundation cited in the petitioner’s prayer are meant for “sale” and not exchange of lands.
“... the specific word that has been used both in the Act as well as in the Rules is 'sale' of an immovable property [land], in which case, it requires the previous sanction of the Central Government if its value is more than Rs.5 lakhs. The same condition precedent cannot be applied in the case of an exchange…”
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is still applied to the exchange/sale of land, considers the exchange as sales, as seen from sections 118 and 120:
118. “Exchange” defined.—When two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing or both things being money only, the transaction is called an “exchange”.
A transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale.
120. Rights and liabilities of parties.—Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, each party has the rights and is subject to the liabilities of a seller as to that which he gives, and has the rights and is subject to the liabilities of a buyer as to that which he takes.
As the exchange is treated as a sale on registration, the Act and Rule of AVF obviously must have regarded land exchanges as land sales. It is surprising why the petitioner’s advocates failed to press this matter in the court. Some residents who were involved in framing the Act and the Rule are very much present in Auroville now, and they could have appeared in the court and clarified.
No grounds to cancel the exchange deeds registered.
Stating that there is no ground to interfere with the exchange deeds, the judgement said, “The facts of the present case do not warrant granting of such a relief as sought for by the petitioner”.
There is no statute about land exchange; the court deliberated related aspects.
So, treating land exchange as not a sale and there being no statute about it, the judgement covers other related aspects: whether the exchanged lands were outside the master plan, if previous sanction of the central government was necessary to exchange lands, the GB’s responsibility to implement the master plan, that WC and FAMC did not appear in the court to claim they were not consulted, etc.
Land exchanges are in line with the Auroville Master Plan and well within the powers conferred on the Governing Body.
The directive para of the judgement (para 36 of 37) states that the land exchanges are “in line with the Auroville Master Plan and that such exchange of lands is well within the powers conferred on the Governing Body”.
While arriving at the above judgement, the following significant observations were made by the judge:
The court cannot shut its eyes and throw out writ petitions.
The Secretary’s counsel tried to get the case dismissed by stating, among other grounds, that “no one has authorised the petitioner” and that she “approached this Court only with a view to put spokes into the functioning of the Foundation”. The court rejected the contention and said:
[...] Ultimately, the Foundation is a Statutory Body under the management of the Central Government and it performs its function with funds allocated by the Central Government. Hence, if any serious complaints are made, this Court cannot shut its eyes and throw out the writ petitions on the technical plea of maintainability. Hence, this Court is not inclined to close these writ petitions on the ground of maintainability.
Cannot get into the nitty-gritties of land exchanges.
The judge regarded as nitty-gritty the submission by the petitioner’s counsel that valuable lands have been exchanged with third parties, and they sold them for huge amounts of money. The judge, therefore, declined to get into it.
30. The learned counsel for the petitioner was attempting to project the case as if certain valuable lands have been exchanged with the third parties and thereby the third parties have been benefited and were able to sell them for huge amounts of money.
31. In the considered view of this Court, this issue raised by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact and this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, cannot get into the nitty-gritty of those transactions.
To my question to the petitioner Krishna, if her advocates provided to the court the estimated values of the exchanged lands, according to certified valuers, she replied, “Yes, the submission included all the details”.
The ministry’s lack of conclusive action on complaints on land exchanges is seen as proof that there is no wrongdoing.
“The Central Government, till date, has not even questioned the exchange of land done by the first respondent [AV Foundation]. Therefore, based on the ipse dixit of the petitioner, this Court cannot look at the transactions like a doubting Thomas.”
It is relevant to note that when the MPs from Tamil Nadu questioned the Minister of Education in the parliament, they replied that the complaints were forwarded to the Auroville Foundation, terming it as the “competent authority”. The MPs and also the RA WCom had then questioned how the Auroville Governing Board could be the competent authority when its own actions were being questioned.
The ministry has not yet informed about the status of the complaints it forwarded.
Are there grounds for appeal to the division bench of the High Court?
A perusal of the judgement shows there are strong grounds, some of which can be seen in the above paras, to appeal against the judgement to the division bench of the High Court.
The Secretary may avoid a possible appeal by having a meeting with the petitioner and also the RA WCom and IAC who had earlier made their proposals to solve the problems raised by the land exchanges.
Copy of the High Court Judgement on the WPs by Krishna Devanandan