Long-settled consolidation allotment cannot be reopened without fraud or lawful review grounds, especially after prolonged delay.

A long-settled consolidation allotment made in public interest could not be reopened after nearly 23 years without fraud, misrepresentation or another legally recognised ground for review, and any such recall had to comply with natural justice; the ex parte recall orders were therefore invalid. The Court also upheld the 1987 allotment made in exchange for the petitioner's original holding, noting the absence of fraud, collusion or patent lack of jurisdiction, the State's failure to show an equivalent alternative land, and the petitioner's lawful conduct. Estoppel, acquiescence and legitimate expectation operated against the State, and the petitioner's possession and revenue entries were protected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recall orders passed after about 23 years, without notice to the petitioner, were legally sustainable. (ii) Whether the allotment made in 1987 in exchange of the petitioner's original holding could be reopened and whether the petitioner was entitled to retain possession and have his entries restored.

Issue (i): Whether the recall orders passed after about 23 years, without notice to the petitioner, were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The recall was effected ex parte and without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. No case of fraud, misrepresentation or other legally recognised ground for review was established. The delay of nearly 23 years was unexplained, and the authorities could not treat the matter as a mere correction after such a long lapse. The action was held to be arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The recall orders were invalid and were quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the allotment made in 1987 in exchange of the petitioner's original holding could be reopened and whether the petitioner was entitled to retain possession and have his entries restored.

Analysis: The original allotment was made in consolidation proceedings in furtherance of public interest, namely, the construction of a road, and the petitioner had surrendered his holding for that purpose. The statutory power under the consolidation law supported such an exchange, including land falling within the category of pasture land. The arrangement had remained undisturbed for decades, and the record disclosed no fraud, collusion or patent lack of jurisdiction. The Court also held that the alternative land offered by the State was not shown to be equivalent, and that the petitioner had lawfully proceeded under the building regulations. In these circumstances, estoppel, acquiescence and legitimate expectation operated against the State.

Conclusion: The 1987 allotment was upheld, the petitioner was entitled to retain the land, and interference with possession was prohibited.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in full, the impugned executive action was set aside, the petitioner's allotment and possession were protected, and the revenue records were directed to be corrected accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A long-settled consolidation allotment made under statutory power in public interest cannot be reopened after a prolonged lapse unless fraud, misrepresentation or a legally sustainable ground for review is established, and any such reopening must conform to natural justice.

---