Land Allotment Dispute Resolution: Smt. Kasturibai Sukharam Khandelwal Trust vs. Shri Khandelwal Trust

In a crucial ruling by the Supreme Court of India, a longstanding land allotment dispute between Smt. Kasturibai Sukharam Khandelwal Trust and Shri Khandelwal Trust has been settled. The judgment brings clarity to the allocation of land for a community hall and emphasizes adherence to legal regulations. #LegalJudgment #SupremeCourt #LandDispute #Trusts


  • Authority initially allotted land to the Trust and another trust of the same community at the same place on the same day
  • After realizing the error, the Authority revisited its decision and issued a new advertisement for land allotment
  • Appellant Trust submitted an application in response to the new advertisement
  • Original appellant had constructed a community hall used for public and community purposes
  • Division Bench of the High Court was unjustified in reverting the decision back to the Authority at a belated stage
  • Resolution no. 21 dated 11 February, 1991 cancelled the application of the 2 respondent and confirmed the allotment in favor of the appellant Trust.
  • The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition under its order dated 1 February, 2001 which was challenged in letters patent appeal.
  • The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh disposed of the writ petition under its order dated 4 November, 2008 with a direction to reconsider the allotment of land after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and assess the comparative assessment and merit of the appellant Trust and 2 respondent.
  • Appellant Trust submitted an application pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications dated 7 September, 1989, and no application was submitted by the 2 respondent.
  • The authority rectified the mistake of allotting land to the 2 respondent by cancelling the letter of allotment and confirming it in favor of the appellant Trust under Resolution No. 21 dated 11 February, 1991.
  • The decision of the Authority was in conformity with Chapter III of Disposal Regulations, 1987.
  • Interference in writ appeal was considered not justiciable and deserved to be interfered with by the Court.
  • The 2 respondent did not appear to be interested in the proceedings to put forth his claim.

Also Read: Tower Infotech Ltd. Bail Order Appeal


  • Both the appellants (Smt. Kasturibai Sukharam Khandelwal Trust and Shri Khandelwal Trust) are dissatisfied with the judgment dated 4 November, 2008.
  • Appellant Smt. Kasturibai Sukharam Khandelwal Trust and respondent Shri Khandelwal Trust are registered public trusts.
  • 2nd respondent did not submit any application for land allotment as per the advertisement
  • Appellant Trust’s application was in order and allotted 50,000 sq. ft. for community hall
  • 2nd respondent’s application was erroneously processed and 30,000 sq. ft. was allotted
  • Authority confirmed the 50,000 sq. ft. allotment to the Trust and rejected 2nd respondent’s application
  • No failure by the Trust to fulfill conditions for allotment
  • 2nd respondent approached High Court citing lack of natural justice in cancellation of their allotment
  • Division Bench directed Authority to revisit allotment decision

Also Read: Priority of Employees’ Dues in Asset Sale: SARFAESI Act vs. Land Revenue Code


  • Respondent has not submitted any application for allotment of land as per the advertisement dated 7 September, 1989.
  • Authority had no justification to consider the non-compliant application of the respondent.
  • Scrutiny of the application for land allotment was not open to the respondent due to non-compliance.
  • Calling upon the respondent for a hearing would serve no purpose given the circumstances.
  • The respondent has chosen not to participate in the proceedings, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the alleged allotment claim.
  • Allocation to LIC irrelevant to inter se dispute between trusts.
  • No justification for involving LIC in the proceedings.
  • No purpose served by revisiting matter when lease deed executed, construction done, and respondent disinterested.
  • Both appeals succeed and are allowed.

Also Read: Landmark Judgement on Consumer Rights in Healthcare Sector


  • The Division Bench of the High Court’s judgment dated 4 November, 2008 has been overturned.
  • No costs are to be incurred.
  • Any pending applications are now resolved.


Case Number: C.A. No.-005308-005308 / 2010

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *