Supreme Court Sets Aside Rajasthan High Court’s Order on Land Allotment to War Veteran’s Widow
The present case is an appeal filed before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the decision of the Rajasthan High Court regarding the land allotment to the widow of a war-disabled ex-serviceman. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the High Court’s directive to grant possession of land to the petitioner was legally valid and whether procedural lapses had occurred in the original allotment process.
Background of the Case
Shri Bheru Lal was serving as a Sepoy in the Indian Army when he suffered a grave injury due to a mine blast during the Indo-Pak war of 1965, which resulted in the amputation of his right foot. Following his injury, he was invalidated out of military service. Under the Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-Servicemen and Dependents of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands) Rules, 1963, he was eligible for an allotment of up to 25 Bighas of irrigated or 50 Bighas of unirrigated land.
In 1971, an inter-departmental letter from the Revenue Department to the District Collector, Udaipur, indicated that 25 Bighas of land in Village Rohikhera, Tehsil Vallabhanagar, Udaipur, had been approved for allotment to Bheru Lal. However, no formal letter of allotment was issued, nor was possession handed over to the soldier. The relevant rule stated that if an allottee failed to take possession within six months, the allotment would be deemed canceled.
Legal Dispute and High Court Proceedings
After Bheru Lal passed away in 1998, his wife, Smt. Sovan Devi, pursued the claim for possession of the allotted land. In 2010, she submitted representations to the government, alleging that neither she nor her husband had ever received possession of the land. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that the land had been allocated to other individuals over time, with a portion being categorized as water-logged.
The petitioner contended that she had visited the site and found that the land had been sold and registered in the names of different individuals. She requested the government to intervene and restore possession of the land to her.
In 2013, she filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, claiming that the land had originally been allotted to her husband and seeking possession. The High Court ruled in her favor, directing the authorities to hand over possession of the land in Khasra Nos. 133, 135, and 137.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was presented with arguments from both parties. The State contended that the High Court had erred in its ruling, as there was no official allotment order in favor of Bheru Lal. It was further argued that even if an allotment had been made, it had been deemed canceled due to the non-fulfillment of possession requirements within six months.
The State also highlighted that an alternative land allotment had been proposed to the petitioner, but she had rejected it. The government maintained that the land in question had been allotted to other individuals lawfully and that it could not be reclaimed after such a long lapse of time.
The petitioner, on the other hand, argued that the government had failed to honor its commitment to a war-disabled ex-serviceman. She contended that the denial of possession was an administrative lapse and that the allotment had not been properly recorded.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found serious procedural and legal deficiencies in the High Court’s order. The Court noted that an inter-departmental letter could not be considered an official allotment order:
“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 six months, the allotment shall be deemed to have been canceled. Firstly, the inter-departmental communication dated 19.03.1971 cannot be treated to be a letter of allotment.”
The Court further observed that Bheru Lal had not taken any action regarding the land allotment for nearly 27 years before his passing, which significantly weakened the claim:
“The disabled ex-serviceman had not taken any action for almost 27 years after the so-called letter of allotment during his lifetime.”
The Court also criticized the High Court’s approach, stating that the ruling was based on assumptions rather than legal facts. It was noted that while the High Court was sympathetic to the petitioner’s situation, it could not ignore legal requirements for land allotments.
Verdict and Implications
Given the procedural lapses and lack of formal documentation, the Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s order. It ruled that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction and that the writ petition was “wholly misconceived, mischievous with collateral motives.”
The Supreme Court concluded by dismissing the case, with no order as to costs, and reaffirmed that legal principles must be upheld irrespective of humanitarian concerns.
Petitioner Name: Mahadeo & Ors..Respondent Name: Smt. Sovan Devi & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Vikram Nath.Place Of Incident: Udaipur, Rajasthan.Judgment Date: 30-08-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: mahadeo-&-ors.-vs-smt.-sovan-devi-&-or-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-30-08-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
