LexMANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. versus UGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 10 S.C.R. 634 MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. V. UGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS. (Review Petition (Civil) No. 1292 of 2010) IN (Civil Appeal No. 973 of 2007) AUGUST 24, 2011 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] C Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6 - Land Acquisition - Land policy by State Government that the person aggrieved to be allotted the developed land in residential area to the extent of 40% of the land acquired subject to fulfillment of certain conditions - Allotment of land in pursuance thereto o not accepted by land owner - Land owner filed an application seeking cancellation of allotment, and allotment of land of his choice at another place - Fresh allotment made also not . acceptable to him nor did he deposit the amount required - Thereafter, land owner allotted the land as per the direction E of the Chief Minister in the commercial area - Said allotment quashed by Supreme Court - Review petition - Held: There is no ground to entertain review petition - Land Policy did not provide the allotment of land of the choice of the tenure-holder - Allotment could be made only in residential area - F Applicant did not comply with the allotment letters rather approached the Chief Minister, who was not the competent Authority - Chief Minister passed the allotment letter himself mentioning the plot numbers of the land in the commercial area as if he was the Authority himself which is not pennissible G in law - Chief Minister could not take upon himself task of the authority - It tantamounts to transgression/ usurpation of competence - While deciding a representation/petition, an authority or court may issue direction to the person concerned to consider the grievance - However, it is not pennissible to H 634 MANOHAR LAL (0) BY LRS. v. UGRASEN (b) BY 635 LRS. & ORS. pass the order by the superior authority/court itself~ Thus, A review petition is dismissed. The State Government framed a land policy to the effect that the person aggrieved shall be allo~ted the developed land in residential area to the extent of 40% B of the area of the acquired land provided the applicant fulfils the conditions stipulated therein. The predecessor- in-interest of the appellants was allotted land in pursuance to the land policy but he did not deposit any amount. He filed an application seeking allotment of C another land cancelling the said allotment. A fresh allotment was made but he did not accept the same and did not ~eposit any amount as required under the Scheme. He approached the. Chief Minister for the allotment of the land and was allotted the land on the direction of the Chief Minister in the commercial area. This D Court cancelled the allotment. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant Review Petition. Dismissing the Review Petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 The land Policy did not provide the E allotment of land of the choice of the tenure-holder. It was not permissible for any Authority to make the allotment in commercial area, as allotment could be made only in residential area. The applicant did not comply with the allotment letters dated 25.12.1975 or 25.1.1978 rather he F had been making attempts to get the land of his choice in commercial area and, consequently, succeeded by getting a patently and latently illegal allotment by the blessings of the then Chief Minister who had no competence to make allotment of land under the law. G [Para 12) [642-D-E] 1.2 It cannot be said that a· person who does not get · relief from the Statutory Authority, has a right to make representation before the Government; as in the instant H 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 10 S.C.R. 1 A. case, Government of Uttar Pradesh was a revisional Authority which could entertain the revision against the order of appellate Authority. In an appropriate case, the Court may issue appropriate directions to redress the grievance of person aggrieved but even the court cannot B direct a person to decide the representation unless the person so directed is a Competent Authority under the Statute, for the reason that the authority may grant relief, which otherwise the authority has no competence to grant taking shelter under the order of the court. Even c authority may grant undeserving relief in pursuance of order passed by the court though the case may be undeserving or time barred and under the bonafide impression that the Authority was bound to grant the reli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.