Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in Land Allotment Dispute; Non-Compliance with Article 299 Does Not Invalidate Patta Granted Under Approved Rules. Allotment of Plots by Mandi Committee Under Rules Approved by Rajpramukh and Executed by Authorized Tehsildar Was Valid Despite Lack of Strict Adherence to Article 299(1) of Constitution of India.

Case Note & Summary

The dispute concerned allotment of two plots by a Mandi Committee at Neem-Ka-Thana for construction of shops. The Government had constituted the Mandi Committee and acquired land for allotment to traders. Plot Nos. A-1 and A-2 were allotted to the appellant on December 21, 1953. The appellant paid the consideration (Nazarana), and a patta was granted on June 21, 1954, with possession delivered on the same day. The appellant began construction and raised structures up to plinth level. In June 1956, the Committee impeded further construction on the ground that one Jhutha Lal was carrying on construction. On October 6, 1956, the patta was cancelled. On October 7, 1956, Ram Gopal, husband of the first respondent Bhuri Devi, made two applications, and the plots were allotted to him on October 8, 1956, with possession given by beat of drum. This led to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by Ram Gopal. The High Court in criminal revision directed the parties to lay a suit. Consequently, the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 3/59 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur on January 15, 1959, seeking possession and damages. The trial court framed issues and recorded findings that the cancellation of the appellant's patta and the allotment to Ram Gopal were bad in law, and that the appellant was in possession. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned single Judge upheld these findings. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench addressed only the question of non-execution of the patta in compliance with Article 299 of the Constitution and set aside the decree, dismissing the suit. Hence, the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The primary legal issues were whether the appeal had abated due to non-substitution of legal representatives of the deceased first respondent; whether the suit was maintainable based on possessory title without a declaration of title; whether non-compliance with Article 299 of the Constitution rendered the patta void; and whether non-joinder of the Mandi Committee or Government was fatal. The appellant contended that the Rules made by the Mandi Committee were duly approved by the Rajpramukh, and the Tehsildar was empowered under Rule 5 to grant the patta; therefore, the grant was valid despite not being executed strictly in the form prescribed by Article 299. The appellant also argued that the respondent could not raise the plea of invalidity for the first time in the Letters Patent Appeal, and that possessory title was sufficient to maintain the suit. The respondent argued that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that no declaration of title was sought, and that Article 299 was mandatory and could be raised at any time. The Supreme Court first held that the appeal had not abated because Kamla, the daughter, was already on record as a legal representative of Ram Gopal and thus represented the estate of both parents after Bhuri Devi's death. On the merits, the Court observed that the allotment to the appellant was made in accordance with the Rules approved by the Rajpramukh, and the Tehsildar had granted the patta and delivered possession after receipt of consideration. The Court noted that the cancellation of the appellant's patta was found invalid by the trial court and the single judge, and this finding had become final. The Court reasoned that when rules for grant of patta are made with the approval of the Rajpramukh, the necessary implication is that the grant must be in conformity with Article 299(1) as modulated by those rules. The Court referred to Nair Service Society Ltd. v. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander, Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram, M/s. Davecos Garments Factory v. State of Rajasthan, and M. Mohamma v. Union of India to support the proposition that non-compliance with Article 299 does not necessarily render the grant void, especially where the authority executing the grant was duly authorized and the allottee had acted upon it. The Court also highlighted that the appellant had been put in possession and had constructed up to plinth level, thereby acquiring possessory title. The final operative order is not present in the extracted text.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Law Points