CODE: 134R

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

Before

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MANNA PRADESH

[UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950]

IN THE MATTER OF

M/S LANDMUGHAL PVT. LTD.& ORS .....(PETITIONER)

V.

STATE OF MANNA PRADESH .....(RESPONDENT)

AND

MR. CHAGAN PEDDY & ORS .....(PETITIONER)

V.

M/S LANDMUGHAL PVT. LTD. & ORS .....(RESPONDENT)

BEFORE IN THE

WRIT PETITIONS NO. W.P./2088/2019 & 2089/2020

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... I

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................................V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...............................................................................VII

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................ VIII

ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................X

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................... XI

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. 1

I. THE MANNA PRADESH DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNANCE AND INCLUSIVE

DEVELOPMENT OF ALL REGIONS ACT, 2019 IS CONSTITUTIONAL ...................................... 1

II. THE PRESENT MATTER IS OUTSIDE OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE HON’BLE COURT
AND HENCE OUT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................... 1

III. THE ACT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW PRESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION ...... 2

A. THE ACT LAYS ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 38 OF THE CONSTITUTION ................ 2

B. THE PRESENT ACT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS MANNA PRADESH RE-
ORGANIZATION ACT, 2014 .............................................................................................. 3

C. THE STATE EXECUTIVE HAS THE POWER TO SHIFT CAPITALS AND HIGH COURT IN THE
STATE............................................................................................................................. 4

D. THE STATE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAWS REGARDING LAND POOLING............. 5

IV. THE ACT HAS BEEN ENACTED WITH PROPER COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE

ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LAW. ........................................................................................ 6

II. THE CONTRACT ENTERED BETWEEN FARMERS AND OTHER LAND HOLDERS CANNOT
BE RESCINDED DUE TO ALLEGATION OF INSIDER TRADING UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION. ................................................................................................................ 7

A. THE HON’BLE COURT DOES NOT HAVE WRIT JURISDICTION IN THE INSTANT MATTER

UNDER ARTICLE 226 ....................................................................................................... 7

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | I

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

1. The parties are non-state entities .......................................................................... 7

2. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in private disputes ........................................ 8

3. The Writ Petition is ought to be dismissed In Limine........................................... 9

B. M/S LANDMUGHAL AND CO AND OTHERS HAVE THE CONSTITUTION AND LEGAL RIGHT
TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY .................................................................................................. 9

C. THE LANDOWNERS DID NOT HAVE THE PRIOR INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE

DECLARATION OF THE CAPITAL OF THE STATE ................................................................ 10

D. IN ARGUENDO, M/S LANDMUGHAL & CO. AND OTHERS ARE NOT BOUND TO DISCLOSE
THE LATENT ADVANTAGE IN THE PURCHASE OF SAID LAND. ............................................ 11

Prayer ............................................................................................................................ XXX

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | II

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS]

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS

¶ PARAGRAPH

§. SECTION

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Anr. ANOTHER

AP ANDHRA PRADESH

Art. ARTICLE

Etc. ET CETERA

Gau LR GAUHATI LAW REPORTER

Govt. GOVERNMENT

i.e. THAT IS

KLT KERELA LAW TIMES

Ltd. LIMITED

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | III

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS]

LW LAW WEEKLY

Hon’ble HONORABLE

Ors. OTHERS

QB QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR SUPREME COURT REVIEWS

Supp. SUPPLEMENTARY

v. VERSUS

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | IV

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
Accountant and Secretarial Services (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1988) 4 SCC 324 ............... 5
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487 ..................................................................... 8
Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited, (2011) 1 SCC 640....................... 1
Bhavesh D. Parish v. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC 571 ....................................................... 2
Brij Bhushan v. Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129 .............................................................................. 4
C.S. Kuppuraj v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 2 LW 554 ............................................... 4
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 ........................................................... 1
D.B. Basnett v. The Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim, (2020) 4 SCC 572 ................ 9
DD Suri v. A.K. Barren, AIR 1971 SC 175 ........................................................................... 9
Dwarka Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 224 ..................................................................... 7
G. Srinivas Rao v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 123 ........................................................... 4
Gayatri Salt Works v State of AP, AIR 1975 AP 262 ............................................................ 6
Gurbax Singh v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1992 SC 163 .......................................................... 6
Himansu Kumar Base v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR 1964 SC 1636........................................ 9
J.R. Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1681 .......................................... 4
Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) 1 SCR 220..................................... 5
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 142 .......................................... 6
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerela (1973) 4 SCC 225 ..................................................... 3
Laker Airways, [1977] 2 WLR 234, p. 267 ........................................................................... 5
Lala Ram v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 813..................................................................... 3
Maharaji Educational Trust v. SGS Constructions and Development Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 7 SCC
130 .................................................................................................................................... 8
Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 8 SCC 262 .......................................................... 2
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 ........................................ 3
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399 ................................ 5
Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi v. Government of India, (2020) SCCOnline AP 51 ..... 2
Ram Chandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 128 ............................................... 9
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 ....... 3
Re Natarajan, AIR 1965 Mad 11 ........................................................................................... 4
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 ........................................................ 4
Sri Ram Ram Narain v State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 519.................................................. 6

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | V

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, (1974) 2 SCC 70 .................................................................. 5

Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services
Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1980)1 SCR 1026 .................................................... 2
The Union of India v. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta, (2001) 7 Scale 158 .................. 4
Tuka Ram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (2013) 1 SCC 353
........................................................................................................................................ 10
Ugar Sugar Works Limited v. Delhi Administration, (2001) 3 SCC 635................................ 2
Union of India v. S.P. Anand, (1998) SC 2615 ...................................................................... 9

STATUTES
Article 12, The Constitution of India ..................................................................................... 7
Article 197(2), The Constitution of India .............................................................................. 6
Article 200, The Constitution of India ................................................................................... 6
Article 226, The Constitution of India ................................................................................1, 8
Article 254(1), The Constitution of India .............................................................................. 3
Article 256, The Constitution of India ................................................................................... 3
Article 300A, The Constitution of India .............................................................................. 10
Article 38, The Constitution of India ..................................................................................... 2
Section 55(5)(a), The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 .......................................................... 11
Section 94, Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014 ........................................................ 4
The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978..................................................................... 9

OTHER AUTHORITIES
https://publiclawproject.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/data/resources/6/PLP_Short_Guide_3_1305.pdf> as accessed on 10th
February, 2021 .................................................................................................................. 1
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/134458/2/011_%20judicial%20review%2
0an%20indian%20perspective.pdf > as accessed on 10th February, 2021 ........................... 1
Moot Proposition .................................................................................................................. 8

BOOKS
M.P. Jain, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, IV (8th ed., 2019), p. 563 ........................... 6
Mulla, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, (1995, 9th Ed.) p. 534....................................... 11
Sri G.C.V. Subbarao, LAW OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, (1971, 4th Ed.) p. 1197
........................................................................................................................................ 11

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | VI

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents have been brought forth the Hon’ble High Court, in the dispute relating to
the Constitutional validity of the Manna Pradesh Decentralization of Capital Act, 2019 as well
as in the petition for rescinding the Contracts, the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of
Manna Pradesh under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
Thereby, the Respondents submits this memorial which sets forth the facts and the laws on
which the claims are based.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | VII

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE-:

The State of Manna Pradesh, which consists majorly of people belonging to Modava Tribe was
separated from existing state of Ma-Nadu due to many cultural and other reasons via Manna
Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 enacted and passed by the Parliament of Kailasha.
Subsequent to this, according to the report of the Expert Committee ‘Naravati’ was declared as
to be the capital of the new State of Manna Pradesh, which was also the popular choice of the
people of that state.
Meanwhile one of the ministers of the government has a business concern of his wife named
M/s Landmughal Pvt. Ltd. on 27.09.2014 brought 88 acres of land abutting the river front of
river Meghna, where the capital of Naravati was situated.
Since 2015, State Government had invested more than KNR 60 Thousand Crores for
development of Naravati. Im the same year a Writ Petition No. 11064 of 2018 was filed for
bifurcation of High Court which was duly notified by the President of Kailasha on 01.11.2018
and presently, the High Court is situated in a makeshift building in Naravati.
TURN OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE PRESENT PETITIONS-:
Due to the sudden death of Mr. Mahendra Kaidu, taking the opportunity the opposition Leader
Mr. Magan Peddy won the elections and started working on its ambition to have three
decentralized capitals and for the same purpose started working on the same purpose. The
committee could not afford any hearing, a writ petition no. 204 of 2019 was filed against
Government of Manna Pradesh for the same. Accordingly, a website portal was launched and
a report in the Annexure 4 was produced, which after an RTI Application was found to have
been an erroneous report out of which no proper answer could be derived.
On 01.07.2019, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Manna Pradesh passed the
decentralization act which was then sent to the Legislative Council which referred it to a ‘Select
Committee’ for which the Secretary of the Council refused to constitute one, against which the
Chairman of the Council has filed a complaint to the Governor.
While all this was in consideration The Legislative Assembly on 01.11.2019 reintroduced the
bill in the Legislative Council where the members of the council adopted a resolution that the
bill had not ought to have been reintroduced in the council. Following on 31.12.2019, the bill
received the assent of the Governor and became an act in force.
Parallelly, the government had instituted a Special Investigation Team under the supervision

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | VIII

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

of home minister, Mr. Subba Peddy. The reference for the aforesaid SIT was to see whether
there was any illegality committed in the acquisitions/land pooling in and around ‘Naravati’.
The excerpts of SIT report are provided as ANNEXURE 6.
Following such events, the present matters are brought before the Hon’ble High Court-:

1. W.P. NO. 2088 OF 2019- Brought by M/s Landmughal and Ors. for declaring the De-
centralization Act unconstitutional.
2. W.P. NO. 2089 OF 2020- Brought by Mr. Chagan Peddy along with some farmers
against the contracts entered between the farmers and the landgrabbers to be declared
void and rescinded back to what it was.

The matter pertaining to these facts are here forth presented before the Hon’ble High Court of
Manna Pradesh.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | IX

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ISSUES RAISED]

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE [I].

WHETHER THE MANNA PRADESH DECENTRALIZATION OF CAPITAL ACT, 2014 IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

ISSUE [II].

WHETHER THE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE FARMERS AND OTHER LAND
HOLDERS COULD BE RESCINDED DUE TO ALLEGATIONS OF INSIDER TRADING UNDER
ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | X

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE:1 THE MANNA PRADESH DECENTRALIZATION ACT, 2014 IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

The petition filed before the Hon’ble Court comes under the purpose of Judicial Review and
cannot be tried or admitted due to the lack of jurisdiction of courts in the policies made by the
State Executive. Additionally, the Act draws its powers from Article 38 which is a Directive
Principle of State Policy and holds the same value as a Fundamental Right. The act abides by
the Parliamentary Legislation of Re-organization Act, 2014 and the Central Government itself
allows State to shift or change their capitals and such shifting is within the State Powers and
Law & Public Order. Moreover, the act provides for matters of shifting institutions which is
under state’s power to do so and shall not be interfered by the Court along with the Land
Pooling which is a matter under the state list. Lastly, the act has been passed following the
complete procedure established in the Constitution along with the Governor’s assent which
cannot be called in question. Therefore, the act in question is Constitutional and valid.

ISSUE:2 THE CONTRACTS MADE WITH THE FARMERS ARE ILLEGAL AND MUST BE
RESCINDED

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble high court that The Contract entered between
farmers and other land holders cannot be rescinded due to allegation of insider trading under
Article 226 of the Constitution as the Hon’ble court does not have writ jurisdiction in the instant
matter under Article 226 because Landmughal and other parties are private parties and do not
come under the definition of state and the same cannot be invoked under Article 226. Secondly,
M/s Landmughal and Co and others have the constitution and legal Right to Acquire Property
under Article 300A which is duly acknowledged by the precedences of law. Thirdly, The
landowners did not have the prior information with respect to the declaration of the capital of
the state but there were certain interpretations in accordance of which the land was brought and
Lastly, that the buyers were under no obligation to disclose any information which shall benefit
them and such act was not illegal. Therefore, the acts cannot be rescinded

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | XI

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE MANNA PRADESH DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNANCE AND

INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL REGIONS ACT, 2019 IS
CONSTITUTIONAL

(¶ 1.) The State of Manna Pradesh (hereon referred to as Respondent) have been made a party
to a petition filed for declaring the Manna Pradesh Decentralization of Governance and
Inclusive Development of all Regions Act, 2019 (hereon referred to as Decentralization Act)
against which the Respondent humbly pleads before the Hon’ble High Court of Manna Pradesh
that The petition is not maintainable, (I) while the act complies with the law prescribed in the
Constitution (II) and has been enacted in proper compliance with the procedure established
under the law. (III)

II. THE PRESENT MATTER IS OUTSIDE OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE

HON’BLE COURT AND HENCE OUT OF JURISDICTION

(¶ 2.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present petition has been filed
under Article 2261 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of challenging the legislature
enacted by the executive of the state and has been brought under the ‘Judicial Review’ for
questioning whether the law has been correctly been applied and the correct procedures have
been followed.2 The influence of Judicial Review for so long has been under Article 2263 and
the present facet deals with the judicial review of legislative action exercised by the
Respondent.4

(¶ 3.) It is submitted by the Respondents that the De-centralization act, 2019 was an
administrative action exercised by the state government and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bajaj
Hindustan Ltd. v. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited5 had established that the judiciary
should never interfere with administrative decisions unless they are illegal, arbitrary or

1
Article 226, The Constitution of India.
2
<https://publiclawproject.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/data/resources/6/PLP_Short_Guide_3_1305.pdf> as
accessed on 10th February, 2021.
3
<https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/134458/2/011_%20judicial%20review%20an%20indian%
20perspective.pdf > as accessed on 10th February, 2021.
4
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.
5
Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited, (2011) 1 SCC 640.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | 1

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

unreasonable, while the present act has defined for its reasonability and non-arbitrariness and
has been passed through legal procedure.

(¶ 4.) Further it is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the supremacy of each of the three
organs of the State i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary in their respective fields of operation
needs to be emphasized.6 The power of judicial review of the executive and legislative action
must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme7 and such democratic setup is
necessary for the working for proper functioning of mutual functions.8

(¶ 5.) In the present case, the law has been formed with proper compliance of laws and is not
unreasonable or arbitrary and is based on reports and opinions of the people of Manna Pradesh
which were recorded through the online portal set up by the government of Manna Pradesh9
and the Hon’ble Court is limited by its jurisdictional ability to strike down the present law on
the basis of contradictions10 brought forth by the petitioners and the same will be against the
democratic setup of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court shall dismiss the present petition for
not having the proper jurisdiction.

III. THE ACT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW PRESCRIBED IN THE

CONSTITUTION

(¶ 6.) The respondents humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that the Decentralization Act,
2019 lays its authority under Article 38 of the Constitution of India (A) and abides by the pre-
existing Manna Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014. (B) The State Executive has the power to
shift capitals and High Court in the state (C) and the matter of Land pooling is also envisaged
under the State List of the Seventh Schedule. (D)

A. THE ACT LAYS ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 38 OF THE CONSTITUTION

(¶ 7.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Decentralization Act brought
in question derives its authority form Article 38 to provide for a welfare state and direct its
policies for securing inclusive development of all regions of the state.11 The power is derived

6
Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi v. Government of India, (2020) SCCOnline AP 51, para 63.
7
Ugar Sugar Works Limited v. Delhi Administration, (2001) 3 SCC 635.
8
Bhavesh D. Parish v. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC 571; Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 8 SCC 262.
9
Moot Proposition, p. 4, para 6.
10
Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (1980)1 SCR 1026.
11
Article 38, The Constitution of India.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | 2

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

from Directive Principles which can be effective if they are to prevail over Fundamental Rights
of a few in order to subserve the common good and not to allow economic system to result to
the common detriment.12

(¶ 8.) It is submitted by the respondents that the Government of Manna Pradesh within the
purview of Article 28 has provided for 3 capitals, the reasoning and functioning for which have
been provided in the act.13 The reason for bringing this enactment is for dispersion of all state
capacities/functions among all the locales of the state and also the decentralization of
developments in an attempt to ensure there is balanced comprehensive development.

(¶ 9.) The respondents submit that the policy formation was done in the interest of the people
for the state being a welfare state. The Apex Court in Lala Ram v. Union of India14 held that
the state instrumentality should serve the society as a whole and must not grant unwarranted
favours to a particular section of people. In the previous enactment the capital being
concentrated at Naravati would have led to favours of development of a single region while the
current act provides for an inclusive development.

(¶ 10.) India is a welfare state and the states shall strive for generating employment for the
youth15 and the present enactment will bring employment for the youth. It is further submitted
that State shall strive for Right to Livelihood of its citizens which is a major part of one’s life16
and such mass inclusion shall result in both livelihood and employment. Therefore, the
Decentralization Act, 2019 deriving its authority from Article 38 is in the welfare of the people
of the state.

B. THE PRESENT ACT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS MANNA PRADESH RE-
ORGANIZATION ACT, 2014

(¶ 11.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Respondents acknowledge the
legislative superiority of the Union over the states provided under Article 25417 and 25618 of
the Constitution and the Decentralization act also abides by the Re-organization Act, 2014
enacted by the Parliament under its power. It is submitted that Section 94 of the Re-organization

12
Per Ray, J, Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerela (1973) 4 SCC 225.
13
Moot Proposition, Annexure 5, Section 5.
14
Lala Ram v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 813.
15
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489.
16
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545.
17
Article 254(1), The Constitution of India.
18
Article 256, The Constitution of India.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | 3

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

Act, 2014 provides for the Central Government to facilitate the creation of a new capital if it
deems it necessary.19

(¶ 12.) It is submitted that in G. Srinivas Rao v. Union of India20 the central Government had
specified that law and order is a state subject and that the centre would not intervene with the
same and that the capital of a state is to be determined by the state and is not to be interfered
by the Central Government.21

(¶ 13.) It is humbly submitted by the respondents that the word Law and Public Order is a
matter under State List and the term ‘Public order’ is of a wide import.22 The expression ‘public
order’ signifies that state of tranquillity which prevails among the members of a political
society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the government.23 It may thus be equated
with public peace.24 The Decentralization Model is based on inclusive development and the
majority of the polls had favoured for the same. Thus, public peace is satisfied with the model
and the act also complies with the Re-organization Act, 2014. Therefore, the act is withing the
powers of the state and does not contradict existing law made by the parliament.

C. THE STATE EXECUTIVE HAS THE POWER TO SHIFT CAPITALS AND HIGH COURT IN THE
STATE

(¶ 14.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Decentralization Act, 2019
has provided for shifting of capitals and High Court of the state. The state has jurisdiction to
exercise its power to shift its offices25 which in the present case is High Court whose seat of
administration has been shifted to Jurnool.26 The same jurisdiction has been upheld by the Apex
Court in the case of The Union of India v. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta.27

(¶ 15.) It is submitted that when the State has taken a decision to locate the office at a particular
place, the Court cannot interfere with such decision while exercising power of judicial review.28
The same view was upheld by the Apex Court in J.R. Raghupathy v. State of Andhra

19
Section 94, Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014.
20
G. Srinivas Rao v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 123.
21
Id.
22
Re Natarajan, AIR 1965 Mad 11.
23
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
24
Brij Bhushan v. Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129.
25
J.R. Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1681.
26
Moot Proposition, Annexure 5, Section 5.
27
The Union of India v. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta, (2001) 7 Scale 158.
28
C.S. Kuppuraj v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 2 LW 554.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | 4

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

Pradesh29 that the interference by the High Court is impermissible and the location of
headquarters by the Government.

(¶ 16.) Although, the law permits the interference of this Court if the decision taken by the
Executive has political thicket30 it is clearly evident that these actions do not have a political
thicket as the people of the state have represented their wills through the polls in favour of the
state action.

(¶ 17.) Lord Justice Lawton in Laker Airways31 while considering the parameters of judicial
review in policy making had remarked that, “Judges have nothing to do with either policy
making or the carrying out of policy. Their function is to decide whether a minister has acted
within the powers given him by statute or the common law. If he is declared by a court, after
due process of law, to have acted outside his powers, he must stop doing what he has done
until such time as Parliament gives him the powers he wants.”

(¶ 18.) Therefore, actions of the state were not influenced under a political thicket and the
shifting of seat of the High Court and other institutions were well exercised by the state within
its rights and shall not be entertained by the Hon’ble Court in its judicial review.

D. THE STATE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAWS REGARDING LAND POOLING

(¶ 19.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the Decentralization Act
provides for repealing of the previous authority under Manna Pradesh Capital Region
Development Act, 2014 and has provided for a new authority to deal with the matters of Land
under Section 7.32 The term ‘land’ in entry 18 is of wide amplitude. The term ‘land’ covers
vacant land. This term takes in land of every description, i.e., agricultural land33 and will also
include Non-agricultural land, rural land, urban land or land of any other kind.34

(¶ 20.) The words following ‘land’ only make it clear that the entry takes in not merely the
tangible immovable property but also all kinds of intangible rights or interests, in or over land
in the broad sense explained above.35 Entry 18 deals with four main topics: land, transfer and

29
Supra, nopte 25.
30
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399.
31
Laker Airways, [1977] 2 WLR 234, p. 267.
32
Moot Proposition, Annexure 5, Section 7.
33
State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, (1974) 2 SCC 70.
34
Accountant and Secretarial Services (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1988) 4 SCC 324.
35
Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) 1 SCR 220.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | 5

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

alienation of agricultural land, land improvement and agricultural loans and colonisation. The
words ‘rights in’ or “over land” confer very wide power on the State Legislature.36

(¶ 21.) In the present matter the state has brought for land-pooling of agricultural lands for the
development of 3 capitals which comes under the criteria of Transfer of Property i.e. in
Agricultural Land which is a state matter and falls under Entry 18.37 The State Legislature can
extinguish or restrict subsisting rights in land, or provide for statutory purchase of land38 or
provide for transfer or alienation of agricultural land.39 The State’s power regarding land is
very strong and the state can even impose ceiling on a land under this entry.40 Therefore, the
actions of state in this act regarding the Land Pooling and acquisition are valid and well under
its powers.

IV. THE ACT HAS BEEN ENACTED WITH PROPER COMPLIANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LAW.

(¶ 22.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the bill was re-introduced in the
Legislative Council for the Second time on 01.11.2019 and received the Hon’ble Governer’s
assent on 31.12.2019. 41The bill was not taken into consideration by the Legislative Council
and would amount to rejection. The bill was deemed to have been passed by the Council
according to the procedure established under Article 197(2)42, where an act re-introduced in
the Legislative Council if rejected shall be deemed to have been passed by both the houses.

(¶ 23.) It is further submitted that the bill had been assented by the Hon’ble Governor under
Article 20043 who has the power to assent to such bills and issue ordinances and such assent of
Governor cannot be brought under the judicial purview. Therefore, the Decentralization Act,
2019 was passed according to the procedure established in the Constitution and the Governor’s
assent to the bill enforced it to become a valid act.

36
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 142.
37
M.P. Jain, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, IV (8th ed., 2019), p. 563.
38
Sri Ram Ram Narain v State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 519.
39
Gayatri Salt Works v State of AP, AIR 1975 AP 262.
40
Gurbax Singh v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1992 SC 163.
41
Moot Proposition, p. 5.
42
Article 197(2), The Constitution of India.
43
Article 200, The Constitution of India.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | 6

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

II. THE CONTRACT ENTERED BETWEEN FARMERS AND OTHER LAND

HOLDERS CANNOT BE RESCINDED DUE TO ALLEGATION OF INSIDER
TRADING UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

(¶ 24.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, the Contract entered between
farmers and other land holders cannot be rescinded due to allegation of insider trading under
Article 226 of the Constitution because, firstly, the Hon’ble court does not have writ
jurisdiction in the instant matter under Article 226 (A), secondly, M/s Landmughal and Co and
others have the constitution and legal Right to Acquire Property (B), thirdly, The landowners
did not have the prior information with respect to the declaration of the capital of the state (C),
lastly, In arguendo, M/s Landmughal & Co. and others are not bound to disclose the latent
advantage in the purchase of said land (D).

A. THE HON’BLE COURT DOES NOT HAVE WRIT JURISDICTION IN THE INSTANT MATTER
UNDER ARTICLE 226

(¶ 25.) It is submitted that, the High Court while exercising its power of judicial review does
not act as an appellant body.44 It is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural
impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority.45 The Hon’ble High does
not have jurisdiction in the instant matter under Article 226 because, firstly, the parties are non-
state entities (1), secondly, Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in private disputes (2), thirdly,
the Writ Petition is ought to be dismissed In Limine(3).

1. THE PARTIES ARE NON-STATE ENTITIES

(¶ 26.) It is submitted that, the definition of state under Article 1246 of the constitution provides
that the term state includes; The Government and Parliament of India; The Government and
the Legislature of a State; All local authorities; Other authorities within the territory of India,
or under the control of the Central Government and Other authorities within the territory of
India, or under the control of the Central Government.47

44
Dwarka Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 224.
45
Id.
46
Article 12, The Constitution of India.
47
Id.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | 7

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

(¶ 27.) Furthermore, in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib,48 the Hon’ble Apex court
held that for a person to qualify as other authorities under the Ambit of Article 1249, it shall
pass the instrumentality or agency test, as per which a person is held as other authority if it has
its share capital held by the government or receives any kind of financial assistance by the
government or it has a monopoly status that has been conferred to it by the government. Even
if an organization is private, it needs to have its functionaries similar to that of the Government
for it to be considered as “other authorities”. 50

(¶ 28.) In the present case, M/s Landmughal is a private company which carried out the
function of buying properties around the present Capital City i.e., Naravati. One such property
of 88 Acres abutting the river Meghna was bought by them in their private capacity with no
link or interference of the Government whatsoever. The business concern does not have its
share capital held by the government, nor does it receive any kind of financial assistance by
the government, nor it has a monopoly status conferred to the business and no deep and
pervasive control of the government exists either.51 The only function carried out by the
business concern was that of land transaction in the areas mentioned above. None of the
functions carried out by the business concern was akin to that of a public duty.

(¶ 29.) Therefore, it can be conveniently concluded that the business concern M/s Landmughal
& Co. is not a business concern which either has an affiliation with the government or has
functions akin to the functions of the government and hence M/s Landmughal & Co. is not a
state entity.

2. WRIT JURISDICTION CANNOT BE INVOKED IN PRIVATE DISPUTES

(¶ 30.) It is submitted that, in the case of Maharaji Educational Trust v. SGS Constructions
and Development Pvt. Ltd.,52 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, it is not within
the kin of the High Court in the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 22653 to declare any property
as unencumbered one. Such rights between private parties cannot be made subject matter of
the Writ Jurisdiction of the High-Court.

48
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487.
49
Article 12, The Constitution of India.
50
Id.
51
Moot Proposition, p. 3.
52
Maharaji Educational Trust v. SGS Constructions and Development Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 7 SCC 130.
53
Article 226, The Constitution of India.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | 8

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

(¶ 31.) In the present case, the alleged land dispute is in between the M/s Landmughal & Co.
and the farmers and there exists no government intervention in the same. It is purely a private
dispute.

(¶ 32.) Therefore, the private dispute in the instant case cannot be made subject to the Writ
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court.

3. THE WRIT PETITION IS OUGHT TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE

(¶ 33.) It is submitted that, in the case of Himansu Kumar Base v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, 54it
was held by the court that, if a Writ Petition on its face does not raise any triable issue, it is
liable to be dismissed in limine.55 Further in the case of Ram Chandra v. State of Madhya
Pradesh,56 it was held that, the High Court may reject a Writ Petition in limine if the court
feels that the Petition raises question of facts for determination which could not be adjudicating
upon in proceeding under Article 226.57

(¶ 34.) In the present case, the factual matrix is centered around an alleged dispute of land that
was lawfully purchased by the M/s Landmughal & Co. in the capital city of Naravati. The
transfer of property was lawfully executed and there exists no prima facie triable issue with
regard to the same. However, in arguendo, even if its presumed that there exists a dispute
regarding the transfer of the said property, the same shall be brought within the jurisdiction of
the District Court as per the Civil Laws of the Land.

(¶ 35.) Therefore, there exists no prima facie triable issue or adjudicating jurisdiction of the
instant matter under the Article 226, the Writ Petition shall be dismissed by the Hon’ble Court
in limine.

B. M/S LANDMUGHAL AND CO AND OTHERS HAVE THE CONSTITUTION AND LEGAL RIGHT
TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY

(¶ 36.) It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, in the case of D.B. Basnett v. The
Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim,58 it was held that, even though, right to property
ceased to be a fundamental right post the 44th Constitutional Amendment59, it still continues to

54
Himansu Kumar Base v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR 1964 SC 1636.
55
Union of India v. S.P. Anand, (1998) SC 2615.
56
Ram Chandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 128.
57
DD Suri v. A.K. Barren, AIR 1971 SC 175.
58
D.B. Basnett v. The Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim, (2020) 4 SCC 572.
59
The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | 9

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

be a constitutional right, legal right and also a human right under Article 300 A60 of the
constitution.

(¶ 37.) Furthermore, while ceasing to be a fundamental right would, however be given express
recognition as a legal right, provision being made that no person shall be deprived of his
property save in accordance with law.61

(¶ 38.) In the present case, the transactions were validly entered by the landowners as buyers
with their sellers for a valid sale consideration under valid registered sale deeds by which they
acquired the landed property in question. The aforesaid right of the Respondents as citizens of
the country to acquire property as part of their constitutional right, legal right, and human right
assumes significance in this context. Therefore, the Respondents have the absolute right to
purchase and own the said properties as per the law of the land.

C. THE LANDOWNERS DID NOT HAVE THE PRIOR INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE
DECLARATION OF THE CAPITAL OF THE STATE

(¶ 39.) The erstwhile state of Manna Pradesh was originally constituted under the State’s
Reorganization Act, 1956 with effect from 1-1-1956. The state was then bifurcated into 2 states
namely State of Ma-Nadu and Manna Pradesh as per Manna Pradesh Reorganization Act 2014.

(¶ 40.) As per Section 6 of MPRA, 2014, central government formed an expert committee a nd
a report was submitted accordingly by the committee under the stipulated time i.e., on 31-8-
2014. According to the report, the area around the birthplace of Raja Agnipati abutting the river
Meghna was the most preferred area by the people of the Manna Pradesh to locate their capital
as there was a popular demand for the same.

(¶ 41.) Hence, it can be conveniently concluded that a speculation around the creation of the
capital city and its location was around long before the official declaration of the capital city.

(¶ 42.) Apart from that, the then Chief Minister of Manna Pradesh, Shri Mahendra Kaidu, in
his speech dated 26-9-2014, clearly mentioned that the government has decided to place the
capital city of the state will be located in the area between two cities on either side of the
Meghna River. The speech also mentioned that the procedure of Voluntary Land Pooling and
Land Acquisition will be followed for the same.

60
Article 300A, The Constitution of India.
61
Tuka Ram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (2013) 1 SCC 353.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | 10

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

(¶ 43.) The business concern M/s Landmughal bought its 88 Acres of Land abutting the river
front of river Meghna on 27-9-2014 i.e., one day after the speech of the Chief Minister Shri
Mahendra Kaidu,62 where it was confirmed by him that the location of the capital will be in the
same place as it was speculated before.

(¶ 44.) Hence, the question of speculative buying does not arise in this case at all. The business
concern M/s Landmughal and Co and other landowners acquired the land of the farmers
without any kind of insider information. The procedure of acquiring the land was done
following the due procedure and it was well within the rights of the landowners to buy the land
from the farmers of Manna Pradesh.

D. IN ARGUENDO, M/S LANDMUGHAL & CO. AND OTHERS ARE NOT BOUND TO DISCLOSE
THE LATENT ADVANTAGE IN THE PURCHASE OF SAID LAND.

(¶ 45.) It is submitted that, the “Buyer’s liabilities before completion of sale” while dealing
with the requirement of disclosure of facts materially increasing the value under Section
55(5)(a)63 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is such that, a buyer is not bound to disclose
latent advantages or communicate to his vendor facts which may influence his own judgment
in purchasing the property.64 The purchaser is under no antecedent obligation to communicate
to his vendor facts which may influence his own conduct or judgment when bargaining for his
own interest, no deceit can be implied from his mere silence as to such facts. 65

(¶ 46.) In the present case, the non-disclosure of the fact that the capital is going to come within
the said region to the seller even if true it does not amount to concealment of material fact,
mere fact that there is subsequent increase in the value of the property on account of location
of capital in the said area cannot afford a ground to prosecute the Respondent.

(¶ 47.) Therefore, M/s Landmughal & Co. is in no way bound to disclose the latent advantage
in the purchase of the said land.

62
Moot Proposition, p. 3, para 4.
63
Section 55(5)(a), The Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
64
Sri G.C.V. Subbarao, LAW OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, (1971, 4th Ed.) p. 1197.
65
Mulla, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, (1995, 9th Ed.) p. 534.

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | 11

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT [PRAYER]

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the lights of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble High Court of Manna Pradesh, that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that

I. Both the Petitions admitted are outside the jurisdiction and are liable to be
dismissed.

II. The Manna Pradesh Decentralization of Capital Act, 2019 is Constitutional.

III. The contracts entered into between farmers and other land holders are valid
agreements under the law capable to be enforced.

Also, pass any order that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the favour of THE RESPONDENT to
meet the ends of equity, justice and good conscience.

For this act of Kindness, The Respondents shall duty bound forever pray.

DATED: 10 October, 2020 SD/-

PLACE: Manna Pradesh COUNSELS for RESPONDENT

12TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 PAGE | XXX