1. Grant of fishing rights (patta) by a Collector based on comparative need after considering rival claims. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 826
2000(7) Supreme 199
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal & S.S. Mohammed Quadri, JJ.
Dal Chand -Appellant
versus
Ram Dayal & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2771 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16748 of 1999)
Decided on 20-4-2000
Important Points
Parties who participate in a negotiation process for the grant of a patta and accept the procedure cannot subsequently challenge the grant on grounds of lack of public notice once they are unsuccessful in their claims.
Subject
Property Law - Land Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
Revenue Law-Fishing right-Patta for-Claims by appellant and respondents-Negotiation procedure adopted by Collector-Respondents participated in negotiation-Grant of patta to appellant on basis need of appellant was greater-High Court, on writ petition quashing patta on ground no public notice given before grant of patta-Not justified-Procedure of negotiation having been accepted by respondents and having participated in negotiation they could not challenge grant of patta. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the grant of patta on the grounds of absence of public notice. (Para 3 )
3. Participation in negotiations and acceptance of the procedure for considering rival claims precludes a party from challenging the grant when unsuccessful. (Para 3 )
4. Acceptance of a selection procedure through participation precludes a party from challenging the outcome based on procedural irregularities such as lack of public notice. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed and the High Court order quashing the grant of patta is set aside. (Para 1 , 3 )
6. Does participation in a negotiation process preclude a party from challenging the grant of a right based on lack of public notice?
Yes, if a party participates in negotiations and accepts the procedure of considering rival claims, they cannot subsequently challenge the grant of the right on the grounds of lack of public notice once they are unsuccessful. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Special leave granted.
2. Patta was issued by grant of fishing rights to the Appellant pursuant to the claims of the Appellant as well as the Respondents being considered by the Collector. We are informed that the basis of accepting the claim of the Appellant for issuance of the patta was that the need of the Appellant was greater.
3. Thereafter, the Respondents filed the Writ Petition and the grant of the patta was quashed on the ground that there was no public notice before the grant of the patta. Without expressing any opinion on the action of the Collector in granting patta to the Appellant, we are of the view that as far as the Respondents are concerned having participated in the negotiations they clearly gave their consent to the grant of patta not by way of auction but by adopting the said procedure. The procedure of negotiations and the consideration of rival claims having been accepted the Respondents could not, on the facts of this case, challenge the grant of the patta to the Appellant when the Respondents were unsuccessful. On this ground alone, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
***************
