SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa - Appellant
Versus
Late Surgeon Vice Admiral GP Panda Through his Legal Heirs and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5151 of 2023 (@ S.L.P.(C) No. 14949 of 2018) With Civil Appeal No. 5152 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 20490 of 2018) With Civil Appeal No. 5153 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No.17857 of 2023 @ D.NO. 26693 of 2018)
Decided On : 22-08-2023
Government Grants Act, 1895 – Section 3 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Resumption of land – Breach of conditions by assignee – It is also not clear whether assignment in any manner overlaps with petition land assigned to deceased respondent – State assumed power of re-entry of land settled on a higher pedestal and that resumption of land in favour of State as automatic – By issuing Resumption Notice, Tahsildar admitted Writ Petitioner’s possession of petition land – Re-entry without reference to law, has been rightly held in favour of Writ Petitioners – Method adopted by respondent-State for dispossessing or attempting to dispossess first petitioner is unconstitutional and illegal – State ought not to approbate and reprobate on possession of deceased respondent of petition land – High Court recorded a finding not by deciding a fact in issue on title, identity, or entitlement but from record and admitted documents – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 12, 12.2 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Disputed question is, what are conditions the assignee breached, or what are conditions violated by the assignee warranting resumption after two and a half decades of assignment. High Court examined the record, nature of the grant in favour of IDCO, initiation of Revision against Assignment Order, and recorded the finding in favour of IDCO.
Findings of Court:
Though the impugned Order in Civil Appeal no. 5153 of 2023 (@ SLP © No.17857 of 2023 @ D.No. 26693 of 2018) filed by the LRs of Vice Admiral Ganesh Prasad Panda is substantially in their favour, still Appeal is filed raising a few grounds. Appeal need not have been filed and even
if it is filed, re-examination of those prayers by this Court, particularly, keeping in view findings recorded while dismissing Appeals filed by State and IDCO, no reason to entertain Appeal.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S.V.N. Bhatti, J.
1. The Appeals arise from the Judgment dated 24.01.2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9988 of 2006 on the file of High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants in S.L.P.(C) No. 14949 of 2018 and S.L.P.(C) No. 20490 of 2018. The D.No.26693 of 2018 is at the instance of the Writ Petitioner. The High Court, through the Judgment dated 24.01.2018, firstly held that the land admeasuring acres 4.800 decimals, leased out to original petitioner Shri GP Panda has been properly identified. The High Court also held that initiating resumption proceedings in Resumption Case No. 1 of 2006 by the Tehsildar, Bhubaneswar, is illegal. Hence, the substantive reliefs against the Judgment or claim in the Appeals filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition.
2. One Surgeon, Vice Admiral GP Panda, filed Writ Petition against the State of Orissa and three others. Pending Writ Petition, Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa (for short, ‘IDCO’) was impleaded as Respondent No.5.
3. The Writ Prayers, in effect, are directed against the respondents not to interfere with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the Writ Petitioner over an extent of acres 4.800 decimals in Plot No. 1288 under Khata 420, village Pathargadia (for short, ‘petition land’) and restrain the continuation of R.C. No. 1 of 2006 initiated by Tehsildar, Bhubaneswar/Appellant No.8 herein. The dispute, in fact, or the enforceable right claimed by the petitioner could be appreciated by taking note of the following admitted circumstances and also by considering the disputed facts.
4. Surgeon Vice Admiral Ganesh Prasad Panda applied for allotment of Government land under an existing policy enabling the assignment of Government land to the armed personnel who have participated on the frontline of the North-East Border in the Indo-China war. Surgeon Vice Admiral Ganesh Prasad Panda was an Ex-Army personnel who satisfied the criterion for assignment of Government land to Ex-Defence personnel. The credentials and the applicability of the eligibility criteria for the assignment of Government land to the armed personnel who participated in the Indo-China war were examined by the Home Department of the State. Through Communication, District Office, vide 60990/S/4/350 dated 19.04.1979, it was accepted that the said Surgeon Vice Admiral Ganesh Prasad Panda was eligible for assignment of Government land under the Policy in vogue. The Tehsildar, Bhubaneswar, in W.L. Case No. 1686 of 1979, on 07.05.1981, settled the petition land in favour of Surgeon Vice Admiral Ganesh Prasad Panda. The land was identified with the sketch. The consequence of the settlement, one can infer, is possession of settled land was made over to Surgeon Vice Admiral Ganesh Prasad Panda.
4.1 The District Collector, Bhubaneswar, noticing an alleged infringement/illegality in the instant assignment, had taken up Revision Case No. 59 of 1982 against the Assignment Order dated 07.05.1981. On 13.01.1983 (Annexure-P2), the District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, dismissed the Revision Petition. The first petitioner claimed to be in continuous and uninterrupted possession of petition land. In 1989, as is evident from the record, the Writ Petitioner got the assigned property surveyed, settled, and specifically got earmarked with boundaries. The petition land consists of an extent of acres 4.800 decimals in Plot Number 1288 out of the total extent of 52.470 acres. The Writ Petitioner claims to have bought the petition land under cultivation and, later on, converted the petition land into a farmhouse. The petitioner claimed actual enjoyment of the petition property.
5. The State addressed a letter dated 03.04.2001 (Annexure-P3) to the Tehsildar, informing that State identified a patch of Government land measuring 52.470 acres in Pathargadia under Bhubaneswar Tehsil, adjacent to Infocity. The State desired Tehsildar to process the alienation proposal of land identi
Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and another
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.