PARASHRAM THAKUR DASS & OTHERS versus RAM CHAND S/O SHRI RADHUMAL & OTHERS

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 288 · Decided: 17-02-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
e 
288 . 
PARASHRAM THAKUR DASS & OTHERS 
v. 
RAM CHAND S/O SHRI RADHUMAL & OTHERS 
February 17, 1982 
[R.S. PATHAK AND 0. CHINNAPA REDDY, JJ.) 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 Ss. 149(2) and 164(3) & Madhya 
Pradesh Land Revenue Code Rules, 1956, Rules 2 to 26. 
Allotment of nazul land to displaced persons-Applications from claimants~ 
State Government ini1ially deciding not to grant plots-Subsequent decision to allot 
.)..-~- -
plots taken-Plots allotted to some claimants-Claims of other parties not consider-
ed-Such action-Whether valid. 
Grant of lease-Hold right in nazul land without auction-Rea,,ons to hi 
recorded in writing-Whether essential. 
Respondents Nos. I to 16 applied for the grant of plots of land for purpo-
ses of constructing shops, alleging that they were displaced- persons and entitled to 
the grant of plots. The appellants also made a similar application. There were 
applications from other claimants. The State Government acting on the report 
of the Commissioner rejected all the applications. Subsequently the Government 
at the instance of the appeJlants who had sought a review1 reversed its earlier 
or®r and df'cided to grant plots on permanent lease to the appellants. The deci· 
sion was conveyed in a memorandum by the State Government, who granted the 
plots to the appellants as shop sites ·in Bhumidhari rights without auction on 
payment of premium. The allotment was assailed by the respondents and they 
repre.sented to the State Government that only after further inquiry should the 
land be reserved for do!serving claimants. 
The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the 
allotment made by the Government in favour of the appellants contending that 
no reasonable opportunity had been given to them to press their claim for grant 
of plots, after reversal of the earlier decision not to grant land, that the apoellants 
had been unduly favoured, and that the power to grant plot's was 't"ested in the 
Collector and not in the State .Government. The appellants contested aHeging 
that they bad acquired a right to the land that -they could not be divested of those 
rights. The High Court quashed the order granting plots to the appellants and 
directed the State Government to take appropriate action on the several claims 
for allotment of lalld. It held that under sub--sect.ion (2) of section 149 read with 
sub·section (3) of section 164 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, 
and rules 22 and 26 framed under the Code it was not open to the State Govern-
ment to dispose of the plots without holding a public auction unless there were 
reasons recorded in writing for doing so and that after initially deciding not to 
• 
PARASRAM v. RAMCHAND 
289 
grant the plots, the su ~sequent decision to allot them was contrary to law as the 
claims of others had not been considered. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : I. The High Court was right in quashing the order granting plots 
to the appellants and directing the State Government to consider the several 
A 
_ claims for allotment. [296 C-D] 
B 
2. The grant cannot be attributed to clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 
149. _The land was disposed of in Bhumidhari right. It was not given on favour-
able terms to the appellants, tlie market value of the plots was taken for fixing 
the premium. From the nature of the grant, it was clear that action under sub-
section (I) of section 149 was intended. [293 El 
3. Under Rules 24 to 26 of the Land Revenue Code, lease-hold rights in 
nazul land are to be disposed of by public auction. If in any particular case the 
State Government or the Collector considers that there is good reason for grant· 
ing the land without auction the reasons must be recorded in writing.· The exis· 
tence of good reason for departillg from the general principle and the recording 
of the reason in writing are essential prerequisites which must be satisfied before 
lease hold rights are granted without auction. [295 A-CJ 
In the instant case there is no evidence that the State Government has 
recorded any reasons in writing for prcfcring the mode of disposing of the land 
without auction. It had also no good reason for favouring that mode. In these 
circumstances the gfant ot land to the appellants was rightly quashed by the High 
Court. [295 E-F] 
4. The State Government hRd decided earlier, as a matter of policy, not to 
allot nazul land to displace.d persons, and pursuant to the dec

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