De facto doctrine protects release orders where the authority acted under colour of lawful office and possessed statutory competence.

The Supreme Court considered whether a release order under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 could be invalidated for want of qualification in the Prescribed Authority, and whether possession could be restored for alleged breach of an undertaking to the High Court. It held that the Government notification conferring magisterial powers on the officer was effective, the officer had the requisite statutory experience, and, in any event, the de facto doctrine barred a collateral challenge because the order was made under colour of lawful authority. It also found no proved breach of the undertaking warranting restoration of possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Prescribed Authority lacked the requisite qualification and jurisdiction to pass the release order under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. (ii) Whether the appellant could obtain restoration of possession on the ground of alleged breach of the undertaking given before the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether the Prescribed Authority lacked the requisite qualification and jurisdiction to pass the release order under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Analysis: The relevant definition of Prescribed Authority under Section 3(e) of the Act was examined in the light of the amendment following the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court found that the Government notification conferring magisterial powers on Tehsildars was effective and that the administrative note could not cut down the scope of the notification. It further held that the officer had the necessary experience for the statutory post. Independently, even assuming some defect in qualification, the officer acted under colour of lawful authority and not as a usurper. The de facto doctrine therefore barred a collateral challenge to the validity of the order passed by him.

Conclusion: The release order was not a nullity, and the challenge to the Prescribed Authority's competence failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could obtain restoration of possession on the ground of alleged breach of the undertaking given before the High Court.

Analysis: The Court found that the dispossession occurred after a misunderstanding about the duration of the undertaking. The record showed that the undertaking was only for a limited period and that possession was not taken immediately after its expiry. On those facts, the allegation of illegal recovery of possession in breach of the undertaking was not sustained.

Conclusion: No direction for restoration of possession was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appellant's challenge failed in substance, and the order under appeal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial or quasi-judicial order passed by an authority acting under colour of lawful office cannot be impeached in collateral proceedings merely on an alleged defect in appointment or qualification, and a statutory order of release will stand where the authority is held to have the requisite statutory competence or, at the least, is protected by the de facto doctrine.

---