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 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 interdepartmental 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. v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1;
Municipal Committee v. Jai Narayan & Co. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 376 – relied on.
1.3 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 19.03.1971 for allotment of land. The Rules contemplate that if the possession is not taken within 6 months, the allotment shall be deemed to have been cancelled. Firstly, the inter-departmental communication dated 19.03.1971 cannot be treated to be a letter of allotment. Alternatively, even if it is considered to be a letter of allotment, the writ petitioner could not claim possession on the basis of such communication after more than 30 years in terms of the Rules applicable for allotment of land to the disabled exservicemen. The disabled ex-serviceman died on 17.07.1998. He had not taken any action for almost 27 years after the so-called letter of allotment during his life time. It appears that the 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. The proceedings show an extra interest taken by the High Court, and not in respect of mere allotment of land but also of the land which was once allotted and is now close to the National Highway. The manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the High Court under the guise of help to disabled ex-serviceman is wholly unwarranted. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is wholly misconceived, mischievous with collateral motives and may be having the patronage of the officers/officials. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 1619][165-B-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.