Supreme Court sets aside judgment due to lack of proof for reassignment preference under RSO 45(4) (4)

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It held that the respondent failed to establish entitlement to preference under RSO 45(4) for reassignment of the land due to the delayed challenge of the assignment and lack of proof regarding non-willful default, uncontrollable circumstances, and an unobjectionable assignment. The court emphasized the respondent's inactivity and ruled that procedural lapses by revenue authorities were inconsequential in light of the respondent's failure to meet the necessary conditions for preference. No costs were awarded in the case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assignment of the suit property.
2. Compliance with Revenue Standing Order (RSO) 45(4).
3. Entitlement of the respondent to preference in reassignment of the property.
4. Legal implications of the delay in challenging the assignment and offering to pay arrears.
5. Procedural lapses by revenue authorities in the assignment process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assignment of the Suit Property:
The appellants were aggrieved by the High Court's judgment directing them to restore the property to the respondent within two months, reversing the First Appellate Court's decision which had dismissed the suit. The High Court found fault with the revenue authorities for assigning the land without notice to the original owner or his heirs and for leasing it to third parties.

2. Compliance with Revenue Standing Order (RSO) 45(4):
RSO 45(4) mandates that in the assignment of "bought-in" lands, preference should be given to the original owners or their heirs provided they were not willful defaulters, the default was due to circumstances beyond their control, and the assignment was otherwise unobjectionable. The High Court ruled that the failure to issue notice to the original owner before converting the land violated principles of natural justice.

3. Entitlement of the Respondent to Preference in Reassignment of the Property:
The respondent claimed entitlement to preference under RSO 45(4) for reassignment of the land, arguing that the assignment to third parties was made without notice to him. The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondent needed to prove that the original owner was not a willful defaulter, the default was due to uncontrollable circumstances, and the assignment was unobjectionable. The respondent failed to establish these conditions.

4. Legal Implications of the Delay in Challenging the Assignment and Offering to Pay Arrears:
The respondent did not challenge the government's taking over of the land in 1935 for non-payment of land tax until filing the suit in 2005. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent's delayed offer to pay arrears and the long gap in challenging the assignment weakened his claim. The court held that the respondent's inactivity and delay demonstrated a willful default, disqualifying him from preference under RSO 45(4).

5. Procedural Lapses by Revenue Authorities in the Assignment Process:
The High Court found procedural lapses by the revenue authorities in not issuing notice before assigning the land to third parties and not holding a public auction. However, the Supreme Court clarified that these lapses were inconsequential given the respondent's failure to meet the essential preconditions for preference under RSO 45(4).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, concluding that the respondent was not entitled to preference under RSO 45(4) due to failure to prove non-willful default, uncontrollable circumstances, and an unobjectionable assignment. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were ordered.

---