MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS.versusUGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

                        [2011] 10 S.C.R. 634


A                   MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS.
                                   V.
                 UGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
             (Review Petition (Civil) No. 1292 of 2010)
                                  IN
B                 (Civil Appeal No. 973 of 2007)
                          AUGUST 24, 2011
     [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

C        Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6 - Land
    Acquisition - Land policy by State Government that the person
    aggrieved to be allotted the developed land in residential area
    to the extent of 40% of the land acquired subject to fulfillment
    of certain conditions - Allotment of land in pursuance thereto
o not accepted by land owner - Land owner filed an application
    seeking cancellation of allotment, and allotment of land of his
    choice at another place - Fresh allotment made also not
  . acceptable to him nor did he deposit the amount required -
    Thereafter, land owner allotted the land as per the direction
E of the Chief Minister in the commercial area - Said allotment
    quashed by Supreme Court - Review petition - Held: There
    is no ground to entertain review petition - Land Policy did not
    provide the allotment of land of the choice of the tenure-holder
    - Allotment could be made only in residential area -
F Applicant did not comply with the allotment letters rather
    approached the Chief Minister, who was not the competent
    Authority - Chief Minister passed the allotment letter himself
    mentioning the plot numbers of the land in the commercial
    area as if he was the Authority himself which is not pennissible
G in law - Chief Minister could not take upon himself task of the
    authority - It tantamounts to transgression/ usurpation of
    competence - While deciding a representation/petition, an
    authority or court may issue direction to the person concerned
    to consider the grievance - However, it is not pennissible to

H                                634
   MANOHAR LAL (0) BY LRS. v. UGRASEN (b) BY            635
                 LRS. & ORS.

pass the order by the superior authority/court itself~ Thus,   A
review petition is dismissed.

      The State Government framed a land policy to the
effect that the person aggrieved shall be allo~ted the
developed land in residential area to the extent of 40% B
of the area of the acquired land provided the applicant
fulfils the conditions stipulated therein. The predecessor-
in-interest of the appellants was allotted land in
pursuance to the land policy but he did not deposit any
amount. He filed an application seeking allotment of C
another land cancelling the said allotment. A fresh
allotment was made but he did not accept the same and
did not ~eposit any amount as required under the
Scheme. He approached the. Chief Minister for the
allotment of the land and was allotted the land on the
direction of the Chief Minister in the commercial area. This D
Court cancelled the allotment. Therefore, the appellants
filed the instant Review Petition.
     Dismissing the Review Petition, the Court
     HELD: 1.1 The land Policy did not provide the E
allotment of land of the choice of the tenure-holder. It was
not permissible for any Authority to make the allotment
in commercial area, as allotment could be made only in
residential area. The applicant did not comply with the
allotment letters dated 25.12.1975 or 25.1.1978 rather he F
had been making attempts to get the land of his choice
in commercial area and, consequently, succeeded by
getting a patently and latently illegal allotment by the
blessings of the then Chief Minister who had no
competence to make allotment of land under the law. G
[Para 12) [642-D-E]

       1.2 It cannot be said that a· person who does not get
· relief from the Statutory Authority, has a right to make
  representation before the Government; as in the instant H
         636     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 10 S.C.R.

1
    A.
  case, Government of Uttar Pradesh was a revisional
  Authority which could entertain the revision against the
  order of appellate Authority. In an appropriate case, the
  Court may issue appropriate directions to redress the
  grievance of person aggrieved but even the court cannot
B direct a person to decide the representation unless the
  person so directed is a Competent Authority under the
  Statute, for the reason that the authority may grant relief,
  which otherwise the authority has no competence to
  grant taking shelter under the order of the court. Even
c authority may grant undeserving relief in pursuance of
  order passed by the court though the case may be
  undeserving or time barred and under the bonafide
  impression that the Authority was bound to grant the
  relief. Authority may also grant the relief while deciding
  the representation on account of collusion/connivance
0
  between persons· making the representation and the
  authority deciding the representation. [Para 13] [642-F-H;
  643-A-B]
             A.P.S.R. T.C. and Ors. v. G. Srinivas Reddy and Ors. AIR
E        2006 SC 1465: 2006 (2) SCR 494; Employees State
         Insurance Corporation v. All India /TDC Employees Union
         and Ors. (2006) 4 sec 257: 2006 (3) SCR 361 - relied on.

      1.3 The Chief Minister passed the allotmem: letter
F himself mentioning the plot numbers of the land, as if he
  was the Authority himself which is impermissible in law.
  The Chief Minister could not take upon himself task of the
  authority. It tantamounts to transgression/ usurpation of
  competence. While deciding a representation/petition, an
  authority or court may issue direction to the person
G concerned to consider the grievance. However, It is not
  permissible to pass the order by the superior authority/
  court itself. [Para 14] [643-C-E]
     G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd. AIR 1952
H SC 192:1952 SCR 583; Life Insurance Corporation of India
  MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. v. UGRASEN (D) BY              637
                LRS. & ORS.

v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and Anr. AIR 1994 SC            A
2148:1994 (2) SCR 163; H.P. Public Service Commission
v. Mukesh Thakur and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 2620: 2010 (7)
SCR 189 - relied on.

     Manohar Lal (Dead) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen (Dead) by Lrs.       B
and Ors. AIR 2010 SC 2210: 2010 (7) SCR 346 - referred
to. ·

                     Case Law Reference:
    2010 (7) SCR 346            Referred to         Para 1      c
    2006 (2) SCR 494            Relied on           Para 13
    2006 (3) SCR 361            Relied on           Para 13
    1952 SCR 583                Relied on           Para 14
                                                                D
   . 1994 (2) SCR 163           Relied on           Para 14
    2010 (7) SCR 189            Relied on           Para· 14

    CIVIL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 973 ·
of 2007.                                                        E
    From the Judgment & Order dated 22.07.2003 of the High
Court of Allahabad in CMWP No. 6644 of 1989.

   Jayanth Bhushan, Shailendra Paul, Rahul Mangla, Arvind
Kumar Gupta for the Appellants.                                 F

    Reena Singh, Devesh Kumar, Dr. Vipin Gupta for the
Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                G
      DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. The review petition has been
filed against the judgment and order dated 3.6.201 O passed
by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 973 of 2007. This Court has
disposed of the said civil appeal by a detailed judgment in
                                                                H
    638      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A Manohar Lal (Dead) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.,
    AIR 2010 SC 2210.

         2. While deciding the appeal this Court proceeded on the
    following facts:
B      A. Land belonging to the predecessor-in-interest of the
  applicants, (hereinafter called 'Shri Manohar Lal'), alongwith a
  huge area of land belonging to a very large number of persons,
  stood notified under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  (hereinafter called as 'Act') on 13.8.1962. Declarations under
C Section 6 of the Act in respect of the same were made on
  24.5.1965 and 13.1.1969 alongwith Notification under Section
  17(1) of the Act invoking the urgency clause. Possession of the
  lands was taken in pursuance thereof and award was made
  under Section 11 of the Act on 11.5.1970, so far as the land of
D Shri Manohar Lal was concerned.

        B. The Government of Uttar Pradesh had framed the land
  policy dated 30/31. 7 .1963 to the effect that person aggrieved
  shall be allotted the developed land in residential area to the
E extent of 40% of the area of the land acquired provided the
  applicant fulfils the other conditions, namely, apply in writing
  within a period of one month from the date of acquisition;
  deposit the amount of compensation so received, if any, and
  other development charges within a period of one month after
  the allotment.
F
        C. Shri Manohar Lal claimed to have filed an application
  on 22.6.1969. Land was allotted to him in year 1975, which was
  not accepted by him. The allottee did not comply with any of
  the terms of allotment rather asked to cancel the allotment and
G allot him the land of his choice at another place. Shri Manohar
  Lal was allotted the land vide order dated 27.12.1979 as per
  the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister in the commercial
  area ..
          2. This Court quashed the said allotment dated
H
     MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. v. UGRASEN (D) BY                 639
         LRS. & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

   27.12.1979 on grounds, inter-alia, that Shri Manohar Lal did not A
   deposit the amount required under the Scheme within the
   stipulated period, when he was allotted the land by Ghaziabad
   Development Authority (hereinafter called as 'Authority'), rather
 · he had been asking another land of his choice, and therefore,
   the earlier allotment was cancelled. He kept quite for years B
   together and, subsequently, approached the Hon'ble Chief
   Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh who was not a competent
   Authority under the Act, therefore, the order of allotment made
   by him was not enforceable. The land allotted to Shri Manohar
   Lal was in commercial area and not meant for residential use,     c
   which was contrary to the terms of land Policy:
       3. The review application has been filed primarily on the
  ground that certain affidavits were filed by the Authority during
  the hearing of the appeal ~nd the applicants did not have
  sufficient opportunity to rebut the same or under the prevailing D
  circumstances, could not file the reply in rebuttal· and some
  relevant documents were also not made part of the record. In
  view thereof, this Court vide orders dated 26.8.2010 and
  29.10.2010, directed the parties to produce the allotment.letter
  in favour of Shri Manohar Lal issued in year 1975 and the letter E
  of non-acceptance by him, and further to furnish information as
  how many persons whose land were acquired in pursuance of
  the same Notification under Section 4 of the Act were granted
  the benefit of the land Scheme.
         4. Both the parties submitted their affidavits in response F
    to the aforesaid orders. The applicants have submitted that they
    were not in possession of the letter of allotment made by the
    Authority in favour of Shri Manohar Lal in year 1975 or his letter
    of refusal of acceptance of the same. However, they have
    submitted that the allotment of the land was made vide letter G
   dated 22 .12.1975 in favoLn' of Shri Manohar Lal which was very
   'far away from his land, which had been acquired. Thus, he
    declined to accept the offer and, subsequently, he was not
.. allotted the land. Thus, he approached the Hon'ble Chief
   M,inister for justice.                                              H
     640     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A          5. On the other hand, the Authority produced orders to
     show that Shri Manohar Lal was allotted land vide letter dated
     22.12.1975, however, he did not deposit any amount as
     required under the said allotment letter. Shri Manohar Lal vide
     letter dated 21.1.1976 refused to accept the said allotment
B    rather asked for cancellation of the same. He approached the
     Hon'ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and got the letter of
     allotment of land directly in commercial area, which was not
     permissible under the Scheme. There is a letter dated
     12.5.1978 on record to the effect that the change of land sought
c    by Shri Manohar Lal vide application dated 3.5.1978 was not
     possible and, thus, he should deposit the development charges
     etc., within a period of 15 days, and in case of failure, it would
     be presumed that he was no more interested in allotment of
     land and the offer so made would stand cancelled.

D·         6. The letter dated 22.12.1975 reveals that Shri Manohar
     Lal was allotted the land measuri11g 6568.29 sq.mtrs., and for
     that the estimated development cost was Rs.2,50,448.90 which
     was subjected to variation and he was asked to deposit 20 per
     cent of the development charges amounting to Rs. 50089.78
E    through bank draft within a period of one month and deposit
     the remaining amount in eight equal instalments.

           7. Letter dated 21.1.1976 sent by Shri Manohar Lal in
     response of the letter of allotment dated 22.12.1975 reveals
F    that the land so offered was not acceptable to him as he wanted
     the land of his choice in plot nos. 1 to 44, L-Block, Sector 3,
     Nehru Nagar. Thus, he asked the Authority to qancel the
     allotment dated 22.12.1975 and allot him the aforesaid land of
     his choice. It appears that Shri Manohar Lal had been pursuing
G    his demand of alternative land without ensuring compliance of
     the terms incorporated in the allotment letter dated 22.12.1975.
     However, while considering his application for allotment of other
     land, the Authority vide letter dated 25.1.1978 made allotment
     of alternative land in Nehru Nagar (West) having equal area and
     vide said letter he was asked to complete the other formalities
H
  MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. v. UGRASEN (D) BY                 641
      LRS. &. ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

for execution of the agreement after depositing the due amount A
within a period of one month from the said date. However, the
allotment made by the Authority vide letter dated 25.1.'1978 was
also not acceptable to him. Shri Manohar Lal made an
application dated 3.5.1978 to allot him the land of his choice,
Nhich stood rejected by the Authority vide ·order dated B
12.5.1978.

     8. After expiry of more than a year, Shri Manohar Lal
approached the State Government stating that his land had
been acquired in year 1969 for residential use and he had not C
been allotted the land under the land Policy. Thus, justice be
done to him. While considering his representation, the
Secretary, Urban Development, vide letter dated 14.6.1979
asked the Authority as to why the land had not been made
available to. Shri Manohar Lal. After ~eeking clarification,
Hon'ble the Chief Minister issued directions to the Authority to D
make the allotment of land in plot nos. 1 to 44 as sought by Shri
Manohar Lal, immediately. In pursuance thereof, letter dated
12.11.1979 was issued by the Deputy Secretary, State
Government, Housing Section to the Authority to make the
allotment of plot nos. 1 to 44, L- Block, Sector - 3, Nehru Nagar E
and, in pursuance thereof, the allotment was made to him.

      9. Ttie matter came under litigation when opposite party
Shri Ugrasen raised certain objections in respect of land
allotted to Shri Manohar Lal. In spite of the matter pending in     F
the High Court, wherein the interim order directing the Authority
not to allot the said land in favour of anybody had been passed,
lease deed dated 28.3.1989 was executed by the Authority in
favour of Shri Manohar Lal.

     10. It is in this backdrop, we have to examine as to whether G
the judgment and order sought to be reviewed, requires
reconsideration.

      11. Though a large number of persons had been displaced
out it appears that only 3-4 families had been allotted the land    H
     642      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                _ [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A    in pursuance of the land Policy including Shri Manohar Lal and
     his brothers and the admitted facts remained that in spite of
     the allotment of the land in his favour under the land Policy on
     22.12.1975, Shri Manohar Lal did not deposit any amount,
     rather vide application dated 21.1 .1976 asked for allotment of
B    another land cancelling the said allotment. Fresh allotment was
     made vide letter dated 25.1.1978 which was also not
     acceptable to him and he did not deposit any amount or made
     any attempt to get the lease deed executed rather approached
     the Ho(l'ble Chief Minister, who was not the competent Authority
c    under the law for allotment of the land.

        12. The land Policy did not provide the allotment of land
   of the choice of the tenure-holder. It was not permissible for any
   Authority to make the allotment in commercial area, as
   allotment could be made only in residential area. Shri Manohar
D Lal - applicant did not comply with the allotment letters dated
   25.12.1975 or 25.1.1978 rather he had been making attempts
 . to get the land of his choice in commercial area and,
   consequently, succeeded by getting a patently and latently illegal
   allotment by the blessings of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister
E who had no competence to make allotment of land under the
   law.

          13. We do not find any force in the submission made by
     Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned counsel for applicants, that a
F    person who does not get relief from the Statutory Authority, has
     a right to make representation before the Government; as in
     the instant case, Government of Uttar Pradesh was a revisional
     Authority which could entertain the revision against the order
     of appellate Authority. In an appropriate case, the Court may'
     issue appropriate directions to redress the grievance of person
·G   aggrieved but even the court cannot direct a person to decide
     the representation unless the person so directed is a Competent
     Authority under the Statute, for the reason that the authority may
     grant relief, which otherwise the authority has no competence
     to grant taking shelter under the order of the court. Even authority
H
  MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. v. UGRASEN (D) BY                643
      LRS. & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

11ay grant undeserving relief in pursuance of order passed by A
~he court though the case may be undeserving or time barred
:ind under the bonafide impression that the Authority was bound
:o grant the relief. Authority may also grant the relief while
jeciding the representation on account of collusion/connivance
Jetween persons making the representation and the authority B
jeciding the representation. (Vide: A.P.S.R. T.C. & Ors. v. G.
Srinivas Reddy & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1465; and Employees
State Insurance Corporation v. All India /TDC Employees
Union & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 257).

     14. The Hon'ble Chief Minister passed the allotment letter C
himself mentioning the plot numbers of the land, as it was the
Authority himself which is impermissible in law. The Chief
Minister could not take upon himself task of the authority. It
tantamounts to transgression/ usurpation of competence. While /
deciding a representation/petition, an authority or court may D
issue direction to the person concerned to consider the
grievance. However, it is not permissible to pass the order by
the superior authority/court itself. (Vide: G. Veerappa Pillai v.
Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192; Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar & E
Anr., AIR 1994 SC 2148; and H.P. Public Service
Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2620).

    In view the above, we do not find any good ground to
entertain the review application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.   F

~.J.                                       Petition dismissed.