Revisional power and court restraint: direct allotment by a superior authority and breach of an interim order were held unenforceable.

The State Government, acting as revisional authority, could issue general policy directions but could not directly decide individual allotment applications in place of the statutory development authority; such interference was beyond jurisdiction and unenforceable. Allotment made in breach of an operative High Court restraint order created no enforceable right and was void in law. A writ court also could not grant allotment relief beyond the pleadings or prayers, and suppression of material facts further disentitled the claimant to discretionary relief. The stated ratio is that a superior or revisional authority cannot perform the competent authority's statutory function, an act done in defiance of subsisting judicial restraint is a nullity, and relief cannot exceed the case pleaded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government, acting as a revisional authority, could directly entertain individual applications and issue allotment directions in place of the statutory authority under the development statute; (ii) whether allotment made in violation of an operative interim order of the High Court was enforceable; (iii) whether the High Court could direct allotment in favour of a writ petitioner when no such relief had been prayed for.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government, acting as a revisional authority, could directly entertain individual applications and issue allotment directions in place of the statutory authority under the development statute.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between general policy directions for efficient administration and revisional power to examine legality or propriety of an order already passed by the authority. The State Government could issue policy directions, but it could not usurp the functions of the development authority or decide individual allotment claims at the first instance. A revisional power presupposed an order of the subordinate authority, and direct interference with individual applications amounted to acting beyond jurisdiction and to colourable exercise of power.

Conclusion: The State Government had no authority to decide the allotment applications directly, and the directions issued by it were invalid and unenforceable.

Issue (ii): Whether allotment made in violation of an operative interim order of the High Court was enforceable.

Analysis: Once the High Court had restrained further allotment, any action taken with knowledge of that restraint could not be given legal effect. An act done in defiance of an interim order does not create enforceable rights and is treated as a nullity. The subsequent allotment, having been made despite the subsisting restraint order, could not survive in law.

Conclusion: The allotment made in breach of the interim order was unenforceable and void in law.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court could direct allotment in favour of a writ petitioner when no such relief had been prayed for.

Analysis: Relief in writ jurisdiction must remain within the pleadings and the prayers actually sought. A court cannot grant a substantive benefit that was neither claimed nor supported by proper pleadings. The impugned judgment went beyond the relief sought by directing allotment in favour of the writ petitioner, and the record also disclosed suppression of material facts, including the nature of the land and the manner in which the claim had been pursued. Such conduct disentitled the petitioner to discretionary relief.

Conclusion: The direction granting allotment in favour of the writ petitioner was impermissible, and discretionary relief could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The statutory authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction, the allotment made in breach of the restraint order could not stand, and the High Court's affirmative direction of allotment was unsustainable. The appellate challenge by the development authority succeeded, while the counter-challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional or superior authority cannot directly exercise the statutory function of the competent authority, an act done in breach of a subsisting court restraint is a nullity, and a court cannot grant relief beyond the pleadings.

---