The division judge bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vikram Nath of the apex court in the case of Mahadeo and Ors v SMT Sovan Devi & Ors held that the inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the Indian army official suffered an injury on the right leg which resulted in the amputation of his right foot. Thereafter, the state framed the Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-Servicemen and Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands) Rules, 1961, and the army officer was within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of the said Rules. When the army official applied for the allotment of land in 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 wherein it was conveyed that it has been decided to allot 25 Bighas in the Village. After that, no letter of allotment was issued to the writ petitioner and the above communication is inter-departmental communication not communication to the disabled soldier.
The petitioner put forward a grievance before the high court that the possession of the land allotted has not been handed over to her husband or to her. The high court allowed another Land in alternative to the petitioner. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge found that the alternative land offered to the writ petitioner is located in 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. The State's intra-court appeal was rejected. It has been established that the land in dispute was given to the writ petitioner. The allottees who were given the property described in the report have contested the High Court's judgment after an attempt was made to remove the appellants from the aforementioned land, which they purportedly cultivated for more than 60 years. After that, the appellant approached the apex court for challenging the order passed by the high court.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The court stated that the High Court had gone out of the way to order possession of the land which was never proceeded with a letter of allotment in favor of the writ petitioner. The approach of the High Court is most unfortunate. It is well settled that inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decisions and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. The court relied upon the judgments titled Omkar Sinha v. Sahadat Khan and Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab. 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 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 Pradesh and Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Limited.
The hon’ble court held that the rules contemplate that if the possession is not taken within 6 months, the allotment shall be deemed to have been canceled. Firstly, inter-departmental communication 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. The present appeal is allowed and the decision of the high court is set aside.
CASE NAME- Mahadeo and Ors v SMT Sovan Devi & Ors
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5876 OF 2022
DATED- 30.08.22
CORUM- Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vikram Nath
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
.
Picture Source :
