LexRAJ KUMAR SONI AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• RAJ KUMAR SONI AND ANR. A v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. APRIL 3, 2007 [P. K. BALASUBRAMANY AN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] B U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act-s 122(6) Allotment of Government Land for residential purposes-Cancellation of irregular allotment - Sub-Divisional Officer allotting land to one and thereafter 1 C directing transfer of land in the name of the purchaser-District Magistrate quashed the transfer order in favour of purchaser-Upheld by High Court- Correctness of-Held: Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction vested in him to allot the Government land-Power vests only with the District· Magistrate-Order by Sub-Divisional Officer in favour of purchaser not being in accordance with law, District Magistrate justified in quashing the same- D Thus, orrJer of High Court calls for no interference-Interference would result in resurrection of an illegal and void order. Sub-Divisional Officer allotted Government land in favour of M for.a period of thirty years. M obtained -a sanctioned plan and made certain constructions. Appellants purchased the constructions raised/malwa from M. E Appellants then sought mutation in their favour. Deputy Collector directed the transfer of the land itself in the names of the appellants on payment of land revenue. District Magistrate issued show-cause notice to the appellants as to why the grant of the land made in their favour by the Sub-Divisional Officer should not be rescinded since the Sub-Divisional Officer is not F authorized to grant land as the authority to grant the Government land for the residential purpose vests in the District Magistrate and thereafter quashed the transfer order made in favour of the appellants by the Sub- Divisional Officer. Appellants challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate/Collector. High Court held the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in allotting the land to M and thereafter directing the transfer of the land in G the name of the appellants as void and without jurisdiction. Hence the present appeals. Appellants contended that the tindings by the District Magistrate that 733 H 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. A the power of the Sub Divisional Officer in the matter of allotment of land has been withdrawn is absolutely baseless; that there is absence of production of a copy of the proceedings thereof; that in the show cause notice there was no mention about the withdrawal of the power conferred upon the Sub-Divisional Officer and thus, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer could not have been B set aside; and that the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Respondent-State contended that the proceedings right from the allotment of land up to the execution of lease deed are void ab initio; that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not authorized to allot the Government land in favour of M and thereafter transfer the same in favour of the appellants and C as such the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the orders passed by the District Magistrate/Collector. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The High Court in clear and categorical terms found that D the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction vested in him to grant/allot the Government land and the power vests only with the District Collector. The appellant did not plead and establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the Sub-Divisional Officer is conferred with the jurisdiction to allot/grant the Government land on the strength of application by the interested parties. It is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking the extraordinary E jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and must make a full and complete disclosure of facts to the Court. Parties are not entitled to choose th.eir own facts to put- forward before the Court. The foundational facts are required to be pleaded enabling the Court to scrutinize the nature and content of the right alleged F to have been violated by the authority. [Para 11) [739-F-H; 740-A) 1.2. A plain reading of the Rule clearly reveals that Parganadhikari is merely authorized to sign the lease deed on behalf of the Governor. The Rules nowhere confer power upon the Parganadhikari to allot Government land on lease in favour of any individual. [Para 14) [740-E-F] G 1.3. The Sub-Divisional Officer did not allot the land in favour of the appella
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.