Vested right to re-allot acquired land rejected where disposal must comply with the governing statutory rules.

A pending claim for re-allotment of acquired land does not create a vested right to demand disposal contrary to the statutory regime then in force. The land had already vested in the acquiring body, the earlier correspondence did not result in a binding allotment of the full extent claimed, and the Trust had allotted only part of the land. When the remaining claim was still unresolved, the Nagpur Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1983 applied, and disposal could proceed only in the modes permitted by Rule 5. The respondent's claim for the balance land fell outside those authorised modes, so the decree directing execution of a lease deed could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to enforce re-allotment of the remaining 20.61 acres of acquired land and obtain a decree directing the Trust to execute a lease deed in her favour.

Analysis: The land had vested in the acquiring body after acquisition, and the earlier allotment correspondence never culminated in a firm allotment of the entire 44.61 acres because the respondent did not accept the original terms and the Trust ultimately allotted only 24 acres. When the claim for the balance land remained unresolved, the Nagpur Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1983 came into force and governed further disposal of Trust land. Under those rules, disposal could take place only in the modes specified in Rule 5, and the respondent's claim for additional allotment did not fall within any permissible mode. A pending request for allotment could not be enforced contrary to the statutory regime in force at the time of disposal, and there was no vested right to insist on allotment of the balance land.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to compel re-allotment of the remaining 20.61 acres, and the decree in her favour could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The statutory rules governing disposal of Trust land controlled the unresolved claim for further allotment, and the suit failed because the claimed relief was inconsistent with that regime.

Ratio Decidendi: A pending claim for allotment of acquired land confers no vested right to insist on disposal contrary to the rules in force when the allotment is finally considered, and such land can be disposed of only in the manner authorized by the applicable statutory rules.

---