Legal Analysis in Land Allotment Case

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