MAHADEO & ORS versus SMT. SOVAN DEVI & ORS

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 30-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
MAHADEO & ORS.
v.
SMT. SOVAN DEVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2022)
AUGUST 30, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-Servicemen and
Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands)
Rules, 1963 – Right claimed on the basis of inter-departmental
communication – Impermissibility of – Claim of the writ petitioner
raising grievance that the possession of the land allotted was not
handed over to her husband (disabled ex-serviceman-since
deceased) or to her, allowed by High Court – On appeal, held: The
basis of the claim of the writ petitioner is a letter written by the
Secretary of the Soldier Welfare Department to the District Collector,
Udaipur on 19.03.71 for allotment of land – Inter-departmental
communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate
decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right –
Thus, inter-departmental communication dtd. 19.03.71 cannot be
treated to be a letter of allotment – Further, writ petitioner’s husband
died on 17.07.98 – He had not taken any action for almost 27
years after the so-called letter of allotment during his life time –
Writ petitioner was appointed at the office of Director General of
NCC and thereafter, the process of possession was initiated by her
– Still further, the alternative land was allotted to the writ petitioner
on the strength of the interim orders passed by the Court from time
to time calling upon the officers of the State in Court – Manner in
which the matter has been dealt with by the High Court under the
guise of help to disabled ex-serviceman is unwarranted – Writ
petition filed by the writ petitioner is misconceived, mischievous
with collateral motives and may be having the patronage of the
officers/officials – Order passed by High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It appears that the disabled ex-serviceman
(husband of the writ petitioner) applied for allotment of land in
the category of disabled war personnel. The Soldier Welfare
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 153
153
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
Section of the Revenue Department of the State sent a letter to
the District Collector, Udaipur on 19.3.1971 wherein it was
conveyed that it has been decided to allot 25 Bighas in Village
Rohikhera, Tehsil Vallabhanagar comprising in Khasra Nos. 133,
135 and 137. There is no letter of allotment of land issued to the
husband of the writ petitioner or to the writ petitioner on record
in pursuance of the said communication. The said letter is inter-
departmental communication and not a communication to the
disabled soldier. [Para 4, 5][157-A-B, G-H]
1.2 The Single Judge found that the alternative land offered
to the writ petitioner is located at a very remote/far off area and
is not cultivable and therefore, a direction was issued to give
possession of the land originally allotted to the writ petitioner.
An intra-court appeal preferred by the State remained
unsuccessful. It has come on record that the land in question was
allotted to the writ petitioner. The allottees who were allotted
the land as mentioned in the report have challenged the order
passed by the High Court when an attempt was made to evict the
appellants from the said land which was cultivated by them
allegedly for more than 60 years. The appellants came to know
about the order passed by the High Court for the first time on
27.09.2021 when they filed a civil suit before the Court of Senior
Civil Judge, Vallabhanagar. Since the order was passed by the
High Court allotting land to the writ petitioner, the appellants
approached this Court for challenging the order passed by the
High Court. The High Court had gone out of the way to order
possession of land which was never proceeded with letter of
allotment in favour of the writ petitioner. The approach of the
High Court is most unfortunate. Inter-departmental
communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate
decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right.
[Paras 10-14][160-E; 161-G-H; 162-A-C]
Omkar Sinha v. Sahadat Khan 2022 SCC OnLine SC
601; Reliance was placed on Bachhittar Singh v. State
of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 713;
K.S.B. Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2018) 11 SCC
277 : [2017] 12 SCR 698; Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
155
v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1;
Municipal Committee v. Jai Narayan & Co. 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 376 –

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.