SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 441

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.K. Balasubramanyan & B. Sudershan Reddy
Raj Kumar Soni & Anr-PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of U.P. & Anr-RESPONDENT
DECIDED ON : 03/04/2007
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1763OF 2007
(Arising out of SLP(c) Nos. 18747-18748 of 2005)

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 122(6) – Irregular allotment – In any event the Collector is conferred with power to cancel any irregular allotment made by Assistant Collector in charge – Order of Sub-Divisional Officer in allotting the land to one 'M' and thereafter directing the transfer of land in name of appellant is void and without jurisdiction. [Paras 5 and 14]

       (B) Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Fundamental principle of law – That a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Must come with clean hands. [Para 11]

       (C) Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226 and 32 – Exercise of discretion – Court can under Articles 32 and 226 – Refuse to exercise its discretion of striking down the order – If such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of petitioner. [Para 17]

JUDGMENT:

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J.

Leave granted.

On 31-3-1993 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kotdwar accorded approval to allot the land in question admeasuring Ac.0-053 hectare in Khasra No.1003 situated at village Jhonk, District Pauri Garhwal (Uttaranchal) to one Mahanth Govind Das. On the same day, the Sub-Divisional Officer executed a lease deed in favour of the allottee for a period of thirty years from the date of execution of the lease deed. The said Mahanth Govind Das is stated to have applied for and obtained a sanctioned plan for raising certain constructions from the Development Authority, Haridwar. The appellants herein purchased the constructions raised/Malwa under the registered sale deed dated 26-4-1995 from the said Mahanth Govind Das. The appellants claim to have purchased the land also, as is evident from their pleadings and contentions raised in the writ petition. Be it noted, the land admittedly belongs to Government.

The appellants, by their application dated 15-5-1995 requested the Collector to grant mutation in their favour, in which it is stated that they have purchased the debris and not the land from Mahanth Govind Das. The Deputy Collector, having considered the application so submitted by the appellants found "the holder of grant Mahant Govind Das sold the debris of residential building and the shops along with the possession through the registered sale deed in favour of the applicants on 2-5-1995. In case the debris is removed due to violation of the grant, then there is possibility of starting of unnecessary litigation and if Pakka houses are removed, then many legal hurdles might arise, which are not benefit the State government. Therefore it is not appear proper to dispossess them from the land. (sic)" The Deputy Collector however, disposed of the application directing the transfer of the land itself in the names of the appellants on payment of land revenue at Rs.157.50 paise.The District Magistrate, Kotdwar Garhwal vide show-cause notice issued on 5-4-1999 required the appellants herein to show-cause as to why the grant of the land made in their favour by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kotdwar should not be rescinded. In the show-cause notice, it is alleged that the Sub-Divisional Officer has unauthorisedly granted/allotted the land in favour of the appellants. It is specifically alleged that the Sub-Divisional Officer is not authorized to grant land, inasmuch as the authority to grant the Government land for the residential purpose vests in the District Magistrate. The appellants submitted their detailed explanation to the said show-cause notice, inter alia, contending that the authority accorded grant only after lawful enquiry and they have spent considerable amount in renovating the existing building on the land and also made some new constructions in respect of which no objections have been raised at any point of time. It was contended that the proceedings initiated against them are not maintainable in law. It was also contended that they have acquired the status of tenure holders. The District Magistrate, having considered the explanation submitted by the appellants clearly found that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to allot the land to Mahanth Govind Das in the year 1993. The Collector accordingly held that the order of allotment and lease executed by Sub-Divisional Officer did not confer any right, title and interest in the land in favour of Mahanth Govind Das. The said Mahanth Govind Das sold the said land to the appellants without any authority of law. The District Magistrate/Collector also found that the Sub-

Divisional Officer abused his authority at every stage right from the commencement of grant of land to Mahanth Govind Das till the transfer of the land to the appellants. The order of transfer made in favour of the appellants by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been accordingly quashed and appropriate directions have been issued to make entries in the revenue


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top