The Division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh of the apex court in the case of Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors held that as the High Court has not considered the legality and validity of orders on merits therefore, the court has not considered the rival claims of the respective parties on merits.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that both the appellant and the respondents are claiming to be project affected persons whose lands were acquired for the public purpose. The sub-divisional officer allotted the land in question to the Kaluram Mahadu Jadhav @ Kalooram Mahadoo Jadhav under the Rehabilitation Scheme. However, the very same land which was allotted to Kaluram also allotted to the appellant herein by the deputy collector.
Thereafter, the writ petition was filed before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the said writ petition, remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) and directed to pass a fresh order of allotment of the land in question expeditiously.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 submitted that the Additional Collector has made a new order in favour of Respondent No. 1 in accordance with the High Court's contested decision and order. According to the argument, the Deputy Collector used his delegated authority to provide resources at the pertinent time. The High Court correctly noted that rulings were coram nonjudice because the powers/authorities of the Deputy Collector were removed later and before orders were delivered. It is argued that because of this, there was no error on the part of the High Court in quashing and setting aside decisions and then ordering the Additional Collector to make a new decision regarding the allotment of the contested land.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court observed that it is required to be noted that the Deputy Collector was directed to take a fresh decision pursuant to order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court which was as such in the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 – Kaluram Jadhav. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court by which the Deputy Collector was directed to take a fresh decision attained the finality.
Therefore, the High Court ought not to have set aside orders passed by the Deputy Collector on the ground that the same was without jurisdiction and coram nonjudice. At this stage, it is required to be noted that after the said order was sent to the Collector and thereafter, the formal order of allotment was passed.
Therefore, the High Court has seriously erred in setting aside orders on the ground that the Deputy Collector was not having jurisdiction and therefore order is coram non judice.
Under the circumstances impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside orders on the aforesaid ground is unsustainable.
However, at the same time as the High Court has not considered the legality and validity of orders dated on merits and has to considered the rival claims of the respective parties on merits, the matter is required to be remanded to the High Court for fresh decision to consider the legality and validity of orders on merits.
CASE NAME- Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 80148015 OF 2022
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh
DATE- 04.11.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
