Supreme Court of India
MAHADEO & ORSversusSMT. SOVAN DEVI & ORS
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 888
- Decided
- 30 August 2022
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- HEMANT GUPTA
Holding
An inter‑departmental communication is not a valid allotment order; the petitioner's claim is barred by the Rules, and the High Court’s order is set aside.
Summary
The widow of a permanently disabled ex‑serviceman, Smt. Sovan Devi, claimed that a 1971 inter‑departmental letter from the Soldier Welfare Department to the District Collector constituted a valid allotment of 25 bighas of land to her late husband under the Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex‑Servicemen Rules, 1963. The husband died in 1998 without taking possession, and the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking possession of the land, which the High Court ordered to be handed over to her, rejecting an alternative remote plot. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the 1971 letter was merely an inter‑departmental communication, not an order in the name of the Governor as required by Article 166, and therefore did not create any enforceable right. Moreover, the Rules stipulate that possession must be taken within six months or the allotment is deemed cancelled, a condition long overdue. Consequently, the petitioner's claim was barred by lapse of time and the High Court’s order was set aside, with the appeal allowed.
Issues considered
- The 1971 inter‑departmental letter constitutes a valid allotment order under the Rajasthan Special Assistance Rules.
- Whether the petitioner's claim is barred by the six‑month possession requirement and the lapse of more than three decades.
- Whether the High Court erred in directing possession of the original land despite the absence of a formal allotment order.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 166, s. Article 77
- Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex‑Servicemen and Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands) Rules, 1963s. Rule 2(a), s. Rule 6, s. Rule 7, s. Sub‑Rule 4 of Rule 7
- Rules of Business of the Government of PEPSUs. Rule 25, s. Rule 34
Subjects
land allotmentdisabled ex‑servicemeninter‑departmental communicationstatutory interpretationpossession requirementadministrative orderwrit petitionArticle 166Rule of Business
Judgment
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 153 153
MAHADEO & ORS. A
v.
SMT. SOVAN DEVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2022)
AUGUST 30, 2022 B
[HEMANT GUPTA AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-Servicemen and
Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands)
Rules, 1963 – Right claimed on the basis of inter-departmental
C
communication – Impermissibility of – Claim of the writ petitioner
raising grievance that the possession of the land allotted was not
handed over to her husband (disabled ex-serviceman-since
deceased) or to her, allowed by High Court – On appeal, held: The
basis of the claim of the writ petitioner is a letter written by the
Secretary of the Soldier Welfare Department to the District Collector, D
Udaipur on 19.03.71 for allotment of land – Inter-departmental
communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate
decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right –
Thus, inter-departmental communication dtd. 19.03.71 cannot be
treated to be a letter of allotment – Further, writ petitioner’s husband
E
died on 17.07.98 – He had not taken any action for almost 27
years after the so-called letter of allotment during his life time –
Writ petitioner was appointed at the office of Director General of
NCC and thereafter, the process of possession was initiated by her
– Still further, the alternative land was allotted to the writ petitioner
on the strength of the interim orders passed by the Court from time F
to time calling upon the officers of the State in Court – Manner in
which the matter has been dealt with by the High Court under the
guise of help to disabled ex-serviceman is unwarranted – Writ
petition filed by the writ petitioner is misconceived, mischievous
with collateral motives and may be having the patronage of the
G
officers/officials – Order passed by High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It appears that the disabled ex-serviceman
(husband of the writ petitioner) applied for allotment of land in
the category of disabled war personnel. The Soldier Welfare H
153
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R.
A 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. There is no letter of allotment of land issued to the
husband of the writ petitioner or to the writ petitioner on record
B
in pursuance of the said communication. The said letter is inter-
departmental communication and not a communication to the
disabled soldier. [Para 4, 5][157-A-B, G-H]
1.2 The Single Judge found that the alternative land offered
to the writ petitioner is located at a very remote/far off area and
C is not cultivable and therefore, a direction was issued to give
possession of the land originally allotted to the writ petitioner.
An intra-court appeal preferred by the State remained
unsuccessful. It has come on record that the land in question was
allotted to the writ petitioner. The allottees who were allotted
D the land as mentioned in the report have challenged the order
passed by the High Court when an attempt was made to evict the
appellants from the said land which was cultivated by them
allegedly for more than 60 years. The appellants came to know
about the order passed by the High Court for the first time on
27.09.2021 when they filed a civil suit before the Court of Senior
E Civil Judge, Vallabhanagar. Since the order was passed by the
High Court allotting land to the writ petitioner, the appellants
approached this Court for challenging the order passed by the
High Court. The High Court had gone out of the way to order
possession of land which was never proceeded with letter of
F allotment in favour of the writ petitioner. The approach of the
High Court is most unfortunate. Inter-departmental
communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate
decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right.
[Paras 10-14][160-E; 161-G-H; 162-A-C]
G Omkar Sinha v. Sahadat Khan 2022 SCC OnLine SC
601; Reliance was placed on Bachhittar Singh v. State
of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 713;
K.S.B. Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2018) 11 SCC
277 : [2017] 12 SCR 698; Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
H
MAHADEO & ORS. v. SMT. SOVAN DEVI & ORS. 155
v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1; A
Municipal Committee v. Jai Narayan & Co. 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 376 – relied on.
1.3 The basis of the claim of the writ petitioner is a letter
written by the Secretary of the Soldier Welfare Department to
the District Collector, Udaipur on 19.03.1971 for allotment of B
land. The Rules contemplate that if the possession is not taken
within 6 months, the allotment shall be deemed to have been
cancelled. Firstly, the inter-departmental communication dated
19.03.1971 cannot be treated to be a letter of allotment.
Alternatively, even if it is considered to be a letter of allotment, C
the writ petitioner could not claim possession on the basis of
such communication after more than 30 years in terms of the
Rules applicable for allotment of land to the disabled ex-
servicemen. The disabled ex-serviceman died on 17.07.1998. He
had not taken any action for almost 27 years after the so-called
letter of allotment during his life time. It appears that the writ D
petitioner was appointed at the office of Director General of NCC
and thereafter, the process of possession was initiated by her.
Still further, the alternative land was allotted to the writ petitioner
on the strength of the interim orders passed by the Court from
time to time calling upon the officers of the State in Court. The E
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.
The manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the High
Court under the guise of help to disabled ex-serviceman is wholly
unwarranted. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the writ F
petitioner is wholly misconceived, mischievous with collateral
motives and may be having the patronage of the officers/officials.
The order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 16-
19][165-B-G]
Case Law Reference G
[1962] Suppl. SCR 713 relied on Para 14
[2017] 12 SCR 698 relied on Para 14
H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R.
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5876
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.04.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No. 1372 of 2019.
B Abhijeet Chatterjee, Ms. Sweta Sand, Pawan K. Sharma, Vinod
K. Soni, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advs. for the Appellants.
Gajender Singh Rathore, Shraveen Kumar Verma, Sangeet Singh,
Udita Singh, Rahul Kumar, Ms. Kavita Bhadra, Ms. Pragati Neekhra,
Advs. for the Respondents.
C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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.
D 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
E Disabled Ex-Servicemen and Dependants of Deceased Defence
Personnel (Allotment of Lands) Rules, 19631. 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
F
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:
G “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.”
1
H For short, ‘the Rules’
MAHADEO & ORS. v. SMT. SOVAN DEVI & ORS. 157
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
4. It appears that Shri Bheru Lal applied for allotment of land in A
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:
B
“Rajasthan Government
Revenue (G) Department
The District Collector
Udaipur
No: Letter No. 77, F-9(15) of Raj. Dated ….March, 1971 C
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. D
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
E
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 F
Sd/-
S.K. Bhat
Section Officer
Shekhawat
19.03.71" G
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
H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R.
A 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.”
B 6. Shri Bheru Lal died on 17.07.1998. The wife, Sovan Devi2
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 has not been handed over
C either to her husband or to her. The writ petitioner said to the following
effect:
“To,
Secretary
Distt – SS & A Board
Udaipur
D
Rajasthan
SUB: ALLOTMENT OF LAND TO DISABLED SOLDIER
LATE SEP BHERU LAL S/O GOVIND BAOMOLI
Sir,
E I have the honour to request that I Smt. Sovan Devi W/o
Ex Late Sep Bheryu Lal r/o village – Boyaki Pachauli, Dist-
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
A piece of land measuring 25 Bigha was allotted to my
husband by Revenue Deptt Soldier Welfare of Udaipur in village
F Rohi-Ka-Khera. The Batlgar of Khasra No. 133, 134 and 135
vide revenue Deptt. letter No. F 12 (2) 22/70 dated 07-04-1970
but neither my husband (when he was alive) nor me get the
possession of land till today.
Recently when, I visited to the site and enquired about the
G land, I found that it was sold to different people of different places
and they got registered in the Tehsil also. I met with Patwari of
the area and shown my paper to him, he shown me the records of
the land sold to different people and given me a copy of ‘Intkal’ of
different people (copy att.).
2
H For short, the ‘writ petitioner’
MAHADEO & ORS. v. SMT. SOVAN DEVI & ORS. 159
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
Now, through your record, I request that the case may be A
taken up with revenue Deptt, Udaipur for getting the possession
of the land which will help me who is a widow and poor lady.
I shall be thankful to you for this act of kindness and highly
obliged through out of my life.
Yours faithfully, B
(Sovan Devi)
HQ DGNCC
MS(B)
C
WB-IV, R.K. Puram
New Delhi-110066
12 Jan 2010"
7. On the basis of such letter, the comments of the Report of the
Tehsildar were asked by the District Collector on 11.06.2010. The
Tehsildar reported that land measuring 125 Bighas has been allotted to D
20 persons as mentioned in the said communication. It was also pointed
out that remaining land measuring 31 Bighas 11 Biswas is unoccupied
which is in Nadi (pond), i.e., land which is always filled with water. The
District Collector communicated to the Sub-Divisional Officer on
07.01.2011 that the land has not been registered in the name of the E
husband of the writ petitioner, nor such case was found at the level of
Sub-Division and Tehsil. It was proposed that the case be put up in the
Vigilance Sub-Division Level Committee in view of the fact that the
land stood allotted to different persons. The writ petitioner communicated
on 27.06.2011 that she has no objection if alternative land is allotted to
her. There are subsequent communications in the affidavit filed by the F
Secretary, Revenue discussing the question of allotment of land to the
writ petitioner. It was on 04.06.2012 that the District Collector
communicated to the District Soldier Welfare Officer that the question
of allotment of land to the writ petitioner in Pancholi, Tehsil Girva, District
Udaipur is under consideration. G
8. The writ petitioner thus 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. She averred the
following:
H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R.
A “3. That the petitioner is at present working with HQ, DGNCC,
MS (B), WB-IV, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.
xxx xxx xxx
5. That on account of being invalidated out of service for his
disability sustained during 1965 operation, the respondent no.1
B through his letter dated 19.03.1971 informed the respondent no.3
than as per circular no. DS/Rev LR-SSB dated 30.09.1965 as per
legitimate recommendation Shri Bheru Lal has been sanctioned
to be allotted 25 bighas of un-irrigated agricultural land of Khasra
No. 133, 135 & 137 of village Rohi-kheda Tehsil Vallabh Nagar,
C District-Udaipur.”
9. The High Court passed various orders to ensure possession of
the land given to her. In an affidavit filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Vallabhanagar, District Udaipur, before the High Court, it was stated
that the request of the writ petitioner for allotment of alternative land
D was considered by the Allotment Advisory Committee on 19.08.2015
wherein, Survey No. 209 measuring 25 Bighas out of total 101.15 Bighas,
Village Sagatpura was recommended to be allotted to the writ petitioner.
The allotment letter was attached with the affidavit.
10. The learned Single Judge found that the alternative land offered
E to the writ petitioner is located at a very remote/far off area and is not
cultivable and therefore, a direction was issued to give possession of the
land originally allotted to the writ petitioner. It was held as under:
“……. Manifestly, with efflux of time, the Khasras Nos. 133, 135
and 137 have gained proximity with the National Highway and as
F a consequence, the value thereof must have spiralled up
significantly. The alternate land offered to the petitioner vide order
dated 19.08.2015 is located in a very remote/far off area and is
not cultivable. Thus, the petitioner is perfectly justified in claiming
that the original allotment letter should be honoured and enforced.
The allotment was made to an Ex-serviceman who became
G disabled in the war filed and thus, technicalities and pedantic
approach of the government officials can in no manner be
appreciated or allowed to come in way of his widow i.e. the
petitioner herein while considering her lawful claim for the land
allotted to her husband. The initial opposition to the petitioner’s
claim for allotment of land in the self-same Khasras as put forth
H
MAHADEO & ORS. v. SMT. SOVAN DEVI & ORS. 161
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
by the respondents was that it was falling within the catchment A
area. The said plea is totally falsified from the Tehsildar’s letter
dated 03.08.2018 (reproduced supra) Shri Sunil Joshi associate to
Shri Rajesh Panwar, AAG candidly conceded during arguments
that the report of the revenue authorities was misunderstood by
the concerned Government Counsel who made this inadvertent
B
admission in the Court on 19.09.2018. Manifestly, this approach
of the State Counsel in presenting twisted facts for opposing the
plea of the petitioner is absolutely depreciable. On a plain reading
of various reports/communications of the revenue authorities, it is
clear that the remaining land of the subject Khasras is not reserved
as catchment area in the revenue record. It is only because of C
natural contours of the terrain, water gets collected thereupon
and thus, casual description is given to the remaining 31 bighas
land of Khasra Nos. 133, 135 and 137 as a nadi. However, it is
not the case of the respondents that water remains accumulated
on the chunk of land in question all year around. This accumulation
D
is reported only during the monsoon period. This problem can be
resolved easily by pumping the water out. Otherwise also, since
the petitioner insists that she is ready to accept the plot of land in
the same condition it exists, manifestly, the respondents have no
business to deprive the petitioner from her lawful claim thereupon
on frivolous premises. E
In view of the fact that there is no legal impediment so as
to deprive the petitioner from seeking possession of the land allotted
to her late husband (a war disabled ex-serviceman) and as, 31
bighas of vacant land is admittedly available in the disputed
Khasras, this Court is of the firm view that the respondents should F
be directed to hand over possession of 25 bighas of land from the
subject Khasras to the petitioner as per her lawful entitlement.”
11. An intra-court appeal preferred by the State remained
unsuccessful. It has come on record that the land in question was allotted
to the writ petitioner. The allottees who were allotted the land as G
mentioned in the report have challenged the order passed by the High
Court when an attempt was made to evict the appellants from the said
land which was cultivated by them allegedly for more than 60 years.
12. The appellants came to know about the order passed by the
High Court for the first time on 27.09.2021 when they filed a civil suit H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R.
A before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vallabhanagar. Since the order
was passed by the High Court allotting land to the writ petitioner, the
appellants approached this Court for challenging the order passed by the
High Court.
13. The High Court had gone out of the way to order possession
B of land which was never proceeded with letter of allotment in favour of
the writ petitioner. The approach of the High Court is most unfortunate.
14. It is well settled that inter-departmental communications are
in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be
relied upon as a basis to claim any right. This Court examined the said
C question in a judgment reported as Omkar Sinha v. Sahadat Khan3.
Reliance was placed on Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab4 to hold
that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order.
Before something amounts to an order of the State Government, two
things are necessary. First, the order has to be expressed in the name of
the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and second, it has
D to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying
the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an
order is drawn up, the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be
regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. The said judgment
was followed in K.S.B. Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, and Dyna
E Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Limited6. In Bachhittar
Singh, it has been held as under:
“8. What we have now to consider is the effect of the note recorded
by the Revenue Minister of PEPSU upon the file. We will assume
for the purpose of this case that it is an order. Even so, the question
F is whether it can be regarded as the order of the State Government
which alone, as admitted by the appellant, was competent to hear
and decide an appeal from the order of the Revenue Secretary.
Article 166(1) of the Constitution requires that all executive action
of the Government of a State shall be expressed in the name of
the Governor. Clause (2) of Article 166 provides for the
G authentication of orders and other instruments made and executed
in the name of the Governor. Clause (3) of that article enables the
3
2022 SCC OnLine SC 601
4
AIR 1963 SC 395
5
(2018) 11 SCC 277
H 6
(2019) 20 SCC 1
MAHADEO & ORS. v. SMT. SOVAN DEVI & ORS. 163
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
Governor to make rules for the more convenient transaction of A
the business of the Government and for the allocation among the
Ministers of the said business. What the appellant calls an order
of the State Government is admittedly not expressed to be in the
name of the Governor. But with that point we shall deal later.
What we must first ascertain is whether the order of the Revenue
B
Minister is an order of the State Government i.e. of the Governor.
In this connection we may refer to Rule 25 of the Rules of Business
of the Government of PEPSU which reads thus:
“Except as otherwise provided by any other Rule, cases shall
ordinarily be disposed of by or under the authority of the Minister
in charge who may by means of standing orders give such C
directions as he thinks fit for the disposal of cases in the
Department. Copies of such standing orders shall be sent to
the Rajpramukh and the Chief Minister.”
According to learned counsel for the appellant his appeal pertains
to the department which was in charge of the Revenue Minister D
and, therefore, he could deal with it. His decision and order would,
according to him, be the decision and order of the State
Government. On behalf of the State reliance was, however, placed
on Rule 34 which required certain classes of cases to be submitted
to the Rajpramukh and the Chief Minister before the issue of E
orders. But it was conceded during the course of the argument
that a case of the kind before us does not fall within that rule. No
other provision bearing on the point having been brought to our
notice we would, therefore, hold that the Revenue Minister could
make an order on behalf of the State Government.
F
9. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an
order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an
order. Before something amounts to an order of the State
Government two things are necessary. The order has to be
expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1)
of Article 166 and then it has to be communicated. As already G
indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue
Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the
State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound
by what was stated in the file. As long as the matter rested with
H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R.
A him the Revenue Minister could well score out his remarks or
minutes on the file and write fresh ones.
xxx xxx xxx
11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the remarks or the order
of the Revenue Minister, PEPSU are of no avail to the appellant.”
B
15. This Court in Municipal Committee v. Jai Narayan & Co.7
held that a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and
nothing more. It merely represents expression of an opinion by the
particular individual. It was held as under:
C “16. This Court in a judgment reported as State of
Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish, (2011) 8 SCC 670 held that
a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and
nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the
particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting
can be treated as a decision of the Government. It was held as
D under:
“24. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter
and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion
by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such
noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if
E the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the
merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be
termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified
and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles
77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file
F or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right
of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the
President or the Governor, as the case may be, and
authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article
166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can
always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the
G court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision
for exercise of the power of judicial review. (See State of
Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh AIR 1961 SC 493,
Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395, State
of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar (1987) 3 SCC 34, Rajasthan
7
H 2022 SCC OnLine SC 376
MAHADEO & ORS. v. SMT. SOVAN DEVI & ORS. 165
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
Housing Board v. Shri Kishan (1993) 2 SCC 84, Sethi Auto A
Service Station v. DDA (2009) 1 SCC 180 and Shanti Sports
Club v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705).”
17. Thus, the letter seeking approval of the State Government
by the Deputy Commissioner is not the approval granted by
him, which could be enforced by the plaintiff in the court of B
law.”
16. The basis of the claim of the writ petitioner is a letter written
by the Secretary of the Soldier Welfare Department to the District
Collector, Udaipur on 19.03.1971 for allotment of land. The Rules
contemplate that if the possession is not taken within 6 months, the C
allotment shall be deemed to have been cancelled. Firstly, the inter-
departmental communication dated 19.03.1971 cannot be treated to be
a letter of allotment. Alternatively, even if it is considered to be a letter
of allotment, the writ petitioner could not claim possession on the basis
of such communication after more than 30 years in terms of the Rules
applicable for allotment of land to the disabled ex-servicemen. D
17. The disabled ex-serviceman had not taken any action for almost
27 years after the so-called letter of allotment during his life time. It
appears that the writ petitioner was appointed at the office of Director
General of NCC and thereafter, the process of possession was initiated
by her. Still further, the alternative land was allotted to the writ petitioner E
on the strength of the interim orders passed by the Court from time to
time calling upon the officers of the State in 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. The manner in which the matter F
has been dealt with by the High Court under the guise of help to disabled
ex-serviceman is wholly unwarranted.
18. Therefore, we find that the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioner is wholly misconceived, mischievous with collateral motives
and may be having the patronage of the officers/officials. G
19. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the
High Court is set aside with no order as to costs.
Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land allotment"Sign in to search