LEGAL ISSUE: Authority of Deputy Collector to allot land under rehabilitation scheme
CASE TYPE: Land Allotment Dispute
Case Name: Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Judgment Date: 4 November 2022
Date of the Judgment: 4 November 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1323
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a High Court set aside an order passed by a lower authority, when the lower authority was previously directed by the same High Court to make a fresh decision? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning land allotment for project-affected persons. The core issue revolves around whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Deputy Collector’s order on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, despite having previously directed the Deputy Collector to make a fresh decision. The bench comprised of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute over land allotment between Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh (the appellant) and Kaluram Mahadu Jadhav (respondent No. 1), both claiming to be project-affected persons. Initially, the Sub-Divisional Officer allotted the land to Kaluram Jadhav on 31 October 2018. Subsequently, the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune Division, allotted the same land to Rajaram Deshmukh on 21 February 2019. Kaluram Jadhav challenged this second allotment in the High Court, which led to the matter being remanded back to the Deputy Collector for a fresh decision. After hearing both parties, the Deputy Collector again allotted the land to Rajaram Deshmukh on 2 January 2020, which was followed by a consequential order on 17 February 2020. Rajaram Deshmukh then initiated proceedings to have his name mutated in the revenue records. However, as his name was not mutated, he filed a writ petition in the High Court. Simultaneously, Kaluram Jadhav also filed a writ petition challenging the fresh allotment orders in favor of Rajaram Deshmukh.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 31 October 2018 | Sub-Divisional Officer allotted land to Kaluram Jadhav. |
| 21 February 2019 | Deputy Collector allotted the same land to Rajaram Deshmukh. |
| 11 October 2019 | High Court remands the matter to the Deputy Collector. |
| 02 January 2020 | Deputy Collector re-allotted the land to Rajaram Deshmukh. |
| 17 February 2020 | Consequential order passed by the Deputy Collector in favor of Rajaram Deshmukh. |
| 29 April 2022 | High Court sets aside orders of 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020. |
| 02 August 2022 | Additional Collector passes fresh order in favor of respondent No. 1. |
| 4 November 2022 | Supreme Court sets aside High Court order and remands the matter. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, Kaluram Jadhav filed a writ petition (WP No. 3126/2019) in the High Court challenging the allotment of land to Rajaram Deshmukh. The High Court remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector to pass a fresh order. Subsequently, the Deputy Collector re-allotted the land to Rajaram Deshmukh. Following this, Rajaram Deshmukh filed WP No. 2876/2022 for mutation of his name in revenue records, while Kaluram Jadhav filed WP No. 9109/2021 challenging the re-allotment orders. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, set aside the Deputy Collector’s orders of 2 January 2020 and 17 February 2020, stating that the Deputy Collector lacked the jurisdiction to pass such orders and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Arguments
The counsel for Kaluram Jadhav argued that the Deputy Collector’s powers to allot land were withdrawn before the orders of 2 January 2020 and 17 February 2020 were passed. Therefore, the High Court was correct in observing that these orders were coram non judice (without jurisdiction). They contended that the High Court rightly directed the Additional Collector to decide the matter afresh. The counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court should not have set aside the orders of the Deputy Collector, as the Deputy Collector was acting under the directions of the High Court itself.
| Submissions | Appellant (Rajaram Deshmukh) | Respondent (Kaluram Jadhav) |
|---|---|---|
| Main Submission 1: Validity of Deputy Collector’s Orders | The Deputy Collector was directed by the High Court to take a fresh decision, so the High Court should not have set aside the orders. | The Deputy Collector did not have the authority to pass the orders as the powers were withdrawn prior to the orders. |
| Main Submission 2: High Court’s Decision | The High Court erred in setting aside the Deputy Collector’s orders on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. | The High Court was correct in setting aside the orders as they were passed without jurisdiction. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the orders of the Deputy Collector on the ground that the Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction, despite the fact that the Deputy Collector was acting under the directions of the High Court itself.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Deputy Collector’s orders for lack of jurisdiction? | The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the Deputy Collector’s orders on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Deputy Collector was directed by the High Court to take a fresh decision, and that order had attained finality. However, the Supreme Court also noted that the High Court had not considered the legality and validity of the Deputy Collector’s orders on merits and therefore, the matter was remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly cite any case laws or legal provisions. The primary focus of the court was on the procedural aspect of the High Court’s decision to set aside the Deputy Collector’s order on grounds of jurisdiction, despite having directed the Deputy Collector to make a fresh decision.
| Authority | How the Court Considered it |
|---|---|
| Order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WP No. 3126/2019 | The Supreme Court noted that this order directed the Deputy Collector to take a fresh decision and had attained finality. The High Court should not have set aside the subsequent orders of the Deputy Collector on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court Treated it |
|---|---|
| Deputy Collector’s lack of jurisdiction. | The Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the Deputy Collector’s orders on this ground, as the Deputy Collector was acting under the High Court’s previous directions. |
| Merits of the land allotment. | The Court did not consider the merits of the land allotment, as the High Court had not done so. The matter was remanded to the High Court to consider the legality and validity of orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on merits. |
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect in setting aside the orders of the Deputy Collector on the grounds of jurisdiction. The Court noted that the Deputy Collector was acting under the directions of the High Court, and that order had attained finality. However, the Supreme Court also observed that the High Court had not considered the merits of the case. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the merits of the allotment orders. The Supreme Court also quashed the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Pune Division, which was passed pursuant to the impugned order of the High Court.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s decision. The Court emphasized that the High Court had previously directed the Deputy Collector to make a fresh decision, and therefore, it was not correct to set aside the Deputy Collector’s order on grounds of jurisdiction. The Court’s reasoning focused on ensuring that the High Court adhered to its own previous directions. The Supreme Court’s decision also reflects a concern for procedural fairness and ensuring that all parties receive a fair hearing on the merits of their claims.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Correctness | 60% |
| Adherence to Previous Court Orders | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court did not delve into the merits of the case, as the High Court had not done so. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that the High Court should not have set aside the Deputy Collector’s order on the grounds of jurisdiction, as the Deputy Collector was acting under the High Court’s previous directions. The matter was remanded to the High Court to consider the legality and validity of the orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on merits.
“Therefore, the High Court ought not to have set aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector on the ground that the same was without jurisdiction and coram non judice.”
“However, at the same time as the High Court has not considered the legality and validity of orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on merits and has not considered the rival claims of the respective parties on merits, the matter is required to be remanded to the High Court for fresh decision to consider the legality and validity of orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on merits.”
“The present appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ High Courts must adhere to their previous directions when dealing with subordinate authorities.
- ✓ Orders passed by subordinate authorities under the direction of a higher court should not be set aside on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, if the higher court has directed the lower authority to decide afresh.
- ✓ Matters must be decided on their merits, and procedural issues should not be used to avoid considering the substantive aspects of a case.
- ✓ The case highlights the importance of ensuring that all parties receive a fair hearing on the merits of their claims.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the High Court to restore Writ Petition Nos. 2876/2022 and 9109/2021 to its file and decide them afresh on merits. The Court also allowed respondents 2 to 4 to file impleadment applications before the High Court and make their submissions.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot set aside an order of a subordinate authority on the ground of lack of jurisdiction if the subordinate authority was directed by the High Court to decide the matter afresh. This decision emphasizes the importance of procedural consistency and the need for courts to adhere to their own previous directions. This case does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the principle of judicial consistency.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the merits of the land allotment dispute. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have set aside the Deputy Collector’s orders on the grounds of jurisdiction, as the Deputy Collector was acting under the High Court’s previous directions. The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to the High Court to decide the matter in accordance with law.