In a recent legal case concerning land allotment, the court’s thorough legal analysis played a pivotal role in determining the outcome. The judgment highlighted significant factors like the need for formal orders, the importance of clear communication, and the implications of inter-departmental communications. This case summary delves into the court’s meticulous examination of the law and its impact on the resolution of the dispute.
Facts
- 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.
- Shri Bheru Lal while serving as a Sepoy in the Indian Army suffered an injury on the right leg due to a 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.
- The writ petitioner filed a Writ Petition No 4513 of 2013 raising a grievance that the possession of the land allotted on 19.3.1971 has not been handed over to her husband or to her.
- The learned Single Judge found that the alternative land offered to the writ petitioner is located at a very remote/far off area and is not cultivable, therefore a direction was issued to give possession of the land originally allotted to the writ petitioner. Shri Bheru Lal died on 17.07.1998.
- An intra-court appeal by the State was unsuccessful.
- The land in question was allotted to the writ petitioner.
- Allottees challenged the order for eviction from land cultivated by them for over 60 years.
- Appellants learned of the High Court order on 27.09.2021.
- Appellants approached the Court to challenge the High Court’s order.
- High Court ordered possession of land not allocated to the writ petitioner.
- Inter-departmental communications are in the process and cannot be relied upon for claiming rights.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment on Compensation for Fatal Accident
Analysis
- Simply writing something on a file does not amount to an order.
- Noting recorded in a file is just a noting and does not hold the same weight as an order.
- The principle established in one case was followed in subsequent cases to maintain consistency.
- An inter-departmental communication dated 19.03.1971 cannot be considered a letter of allotment.
- Failure to take possession within 6 months results in the cancellation of allotment as per the rules.
- The High Court’s involvement in the matter exceeded mere assistance to the disabled ex-serviceman.
- An order of the State Government must be expressed in the name of the Governor and communicated.
- No formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made.
- The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is found to be wholly misconceived
- The petition is deemed to be mischievous with collateral motives
- There is suspicion that the petition may be supported by officers/officials
- The motives behind the petition are questioned
Also Read: Inter-State Jurisdiction: Assessing Legislative Competence
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed.
- The order made by the High Court has been overturned.
- No costs have been awarded in this matter.
Also Read: Enhancement of Compensation and Interest Rate in Landmark Legal Ruling
Case Title: MAHADEO Vs. SOVAN DEVI (2022 INSC 888)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005876-005876 / 2022