Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, Vikram Nath, JJ.
Mahadeo & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Sovan Devi & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2022 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) no. 20839 of 2021)
Decided On : 30-08-2022
(A) Constitution of India – Articles 77(2) and 166(2) – Rules of Executive Business – Inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right – Merely writing something on file does not amount to an order – Before something amounts to an order of State Government, two things are necessary – First, order has to be expressed in name of Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and second, it has to be communicated. (Para 14)
(B) Service Law – Disability Benefits – [Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-Servicemen and Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands) Rules, 1963 – Rules 6 and 7] – Allotment of land to disabled ex-serviceman – There is no letter of allotment of land issued to husband of writ petitioner or to writ petitioner on record in pursuance of communication of Soldier Welfare Section of Revenue Department of the State – It is inter-departmental communication and not a communication to disabled soldier – Land in question was allotted to writ petitioner – High Court had gone out of way to order possession of land which was never proceeded with letter of allotment in favour of writ petitioner – Approach of High Court is most unfortunate – No formal order modifying decision of Revenue Secretary was ever made – Until such an order is drawn up, State Government cannot be regarded as bound by what was stated in file – Inter-departmental communication in question cannot be treated to be a letter of allotment – Alternatively, even if it is considered to be a letter of allotment, writ petitioner could not claim possession on the basis of such communication after more than 30 years in terms of Rules applicable for allotment of land to disabled ex-servicemen – Disabled ex-serviceman had not taken any action for almost 27 years after so-called letter of allotment during his life time – Manner in which matter has been dealt with by High Court under guise of help to disabled ex-serviceman is wholly unwarranted – Order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 5, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment dated 19.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan whereby the order passed by Single Judge on 13.11.2018 was upheld.
Findings of Court:
The proceedings show an extra interest taken by the High Court, and not in respect of mere allotment of land but also of the land which was once allotted and is now close to the National Highway. Writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is wholly misconceived, mischievous with collateral motives and may be having the patronage of the officers/officials.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment dated 19.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 13.11.2018 was upheld.
2. Shri Bheru Lal while serving as a Sepoy in the Indian Army suffered an injury on the right leg due to mine blast in the Indo-Pak war of 1965 which led to the amputation of his right foot. He was thereafter invalidated out of service.
3. The State has framed the Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-Servicemen and Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands) Rules, 1963 1 [Para ]For short, ‘the Rules’]. Shri Bheru was a disabled ex-serviceman within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of the said Rules. Rule 6 contemplated allotment of land upto 25 Bighas of irrigated or 50 Bighas of unirrigated land. Rule 3 contemplated that these Rules shall apply only to the Government lands falling within the Bhakra, Chambal or Rajasthan Canal Project Colonies and already reserved or to be reserved by notification in the Official Gazette for allotment to the disabled ex-servicemen. Further, Rule 7 contemplated the terms and conditions of allotment. Sub Rule 4 was inserted on 16.02.1967 in Rule 7 which reads thus:
“4. In case the allottee fails to take possession of the land allotted to him within six months from the date of allotment, the allotment shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the land shall thereupon be available for re-allotment to any other person under these Rules.”
4. It appears that Shri Bheru Lal applied for allotment of land in the category of disabled war personnel. The Soldier Welfare Section of the Revenue Department of the State sent a letter to the District Collector, Udaipur on 19.3.1971 wherein it was conveyed that it has been decided to allot 25 Bighas in Village Rohikhera, Tehsil Vallabhanagar comprising in Khasra Nos. 133, 135 and 137. The letter reads thus:
| “Rajasthan Government Revenue (G) Department |
| The District Collector Udaipur No: Letter No. 77, F-9(15) of Raj. Dated ….March, 1971 Soldier Welfare Officer, Office of the District Soldier Board, |
| Sub – Allotment of land and possession to permanently disabled soldier Sh. Bharon Lal S/o Govinda Bhonyee, R/o Bhayon Ki Pancholi, Tehsil Girva, Ballabhgarh. |
| Ref : Letter No. F12(2) 22/70 |
| Sir, |
| On the basis of recommendations and directions, approval for grant of land vide circular No. DS Rav. LR SS Read dated 30.09.65, out of the land situated at Rohi Kheda Tehsil Ballabh Garh Nagar bearing Khasra No. 133, 135, 137 land 25 Bigha non irrigated land is allotted to permanently disabled soldier Sh. Bharon Lal S/o Govinda Bhonyee, R/o Bhayon Ki Pancholi, Tehsil Girva, Ballabhgarh. |
| With Regards Sd/- S.K. Bhat Section Officer |
| Shekhawat 19.03.71” |
5. There is no letter of allotment of land issued to the husband of the writ petitioner or to the writ petitioner on record in pursuance of the above communication. The above letter is inter-departmental communication and not a communication to the disabled soldier. In fact, an affidavit was sought from the Revenue Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan and in such affidavit dated 06.05.2022, it was stated as under:
“23. I further state that the original copy of the sanctioning letter dated 19.03.1971 is not available in the office of record room of the Respondent State.”
6. Shri Bheru Lal died on 17.07.1998. The wife, Sovan Devi 2 [For short, the ‘writ petitioner’], succeeded the estate of her husband. It appears that she is working in the Headquarters of Director General, NCC. The writ petitioner submitted a representation while working in the Headquarters of DGNCC on 12.01.2010 that the possession of the land
Rules of Executive Business – Inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right – Merely writing s....
The court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition, finding no violations of the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules and affirming the finality of prior allotments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a delay of 37 years in challenging a land allotment cannot be condoned solely on the ground of lack of counter-affidavit, and the rights of th....
The court affirmed the principle that a prior court order remains enforceable, mandating government compliance in land allotment cases despite subsequent policy changes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective validity of legislative enactments and their impact on mutations and land disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allotments obtained by misrepresentation or fraud can be cancelled without limitation, and such allotments do not confer any title over the pr....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
