TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms Sub-Divisional Officer lacked authority in land allotment appeals</h1> <h3>Raj Kumar Soni Versus State of U.P.</h3> The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked authority to allot the land, and the appellants did not ... - Issues Involved:1. Authority of Sub-Divisional Officer to allot Government land.2. Validity of the lease and subsequent transfer of land.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.4. Principles of natural justice.Summary:1. Authority of Sub-Divisional Officer to allot Government land:The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kotdwar, on 31-3-1993, approved the allotment of land to Mahanth Govind Das and executed a lease deed for thirty years. The District Magistrate later found that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to allot the land, as the power to grant Government land for residential purposes vested in the District Magistrate. The High Court confirmed that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to grant/allot the Government land, and the power vested only with the District Collector.2. Validity of the lease and subsequent transfer of land:The appellants purchased the constructions raised by Mahanth Govind Das under a registered sale deed dated 26-4-1995. The Deputy Collector initially directed the transfer of the land to the appellants. However, the District Magistrate/Collector quashed the order of transfer, holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer abused his authority and that the allotment and lease did not confer any right, title, or interest in the land. The High Court held that the appellants did not purchase the land but only the debris of constructions and that the Sub-Divisional Officer's order was void and without jurisdiction.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:The High Court found that the appellants failed to establish that they lawfully secured the allotment of land. It emphasized that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court must come with clean hands and make a full and complete disclosure of facts. The High Court refused to resurrect the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was unenforceable in law.4. Principles of natural justice:The appellants contended that the order of the District Collector was in violation of the principles of natural justice as the show-cause notice did not mention the withdrawal of the Sub-Divisional Officer's power. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellants did not raise this issue in their writ petition and failed to plead and establish the authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Court held that even if there was a technical violation of natural justice, interference would result in the resurrection of an illegal order.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to allot the land and that the appellants failed to establish their lawful entitlement to the land. The Court emphasized that interference with the impugned order would restore orders not in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
