Invalid government land allotment: writ relief refused where setting aside the order would revive an illegal earlier order.

The allotment and transfer of Government land were invalid because the appellants failed to show any lawful authority in the Sub-Divisional Officer to make the allotment; the officer could only execute the lease deed on behalf of the Governor. The writ petition also lacked the foundational facts needed to support a claim of valid allotment. A technical breach of natural justice did not justify interference, because setting aside the impugned order would have revived earlier orders that were themselves illegal and without jurisdiction. In Article 226 jurisdiction, the court declined to resurrect an order that had no legal basis. The refusal to interfere was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the allotment and subsequent transfer of Government land by the Sub-Divisional Officer were valid, and whether the High Court should interfere despite a technical complaint of breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The appellants failed to plead and establish any lawful authority in the Sub-Divisional Officer to allot the Government land or to transfer it in their favour. The material showed that the officer had only authority to execute the lease deed on behalf of the Governor, and not to make the allotment itself. The application before the writ court also lacked the foundational facts necessary to sustain a claim to lawful allotment. The challenge based on natural justice did not assist the appellants, because setting aside the impugned order would have restored earlier orders that were themselves without authority and unenforceable in law. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court declined to resurrect an illegal order.

Conclusion: The allotment and transfer were held to be invalid and without jurisdiction, and the refusal to interfere was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may refuse to invalidate an order for breach of natural justice where doing so would revive an earlier order that is itself illegal or without jurisdiction, especially when the party seeking relief has failed to establish the legal foundation of its claim.

---