Summary
A soldier disabled in the 1965 war was the subject of a 1971 inter-departmental letter proposing allotment of 25 bighas under Rajasthan's 1963 Rules for disabled ex-servicemen. No allotment letter was issued and possession was never taken. In 2013, years after his death, his widow sued in writ for that land. The High Court rejected the alternative land she was offered and directed possession of the original khasras, now near a National Highway. On appeal by cultivators settled there for decades, the Supreme Court set this aside. An inter-departmental communication confers no right, and in any event the allotment would be deemed cancelled under Rule 7(4) for want of possession within six months. The Court called the writ petition misconceived.
Issues
- Whether an inter-departmental letter proposing allotment of land to a disabled ex-serviceman confers an enforceable right to possession
- Whether possession could be claimed more than 30 years later, given Rule 7(4) of the 1963 Rules deeming an allotment cancelled if possession is not taken within six months
Provisions considered
- Rule 7(4), Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-Servicemen and Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands) Rules, 1963An allotment is deemed cancelled if possession is not taken within six months, which barred the claim made over 30 years later. (¶¶ 3, 16)
- Article 166, Constitution of IndiaA government decision binds only when expressed in the Governor's name and communicated. File notings and inter-departmental letters do not qualify. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Held
- Inter-departmental communications and file notings are part of the decision-making process and create no enforceable right. A government order binds only once it is expressed in the Governor's name under Article 166 and communicated to the person concerned. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The 1971 letter from the Soldier Welfare Section to the District Collector was not a letter of allotment, and no allotment was ever communicated to the soldier or his widow. (¶¶ 5, 16)
- Even if treated as an allotment, it stood deemed cancelled under Rule 7(4) because possession was not taken within six months. The soldier took no step for about 27 years in his lifetime, and possession could not be claimed more than 30 years later. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The High Court went out of its way to order possession of valuable land near a National Highway on an interim-order-driven process. The writ petition was misconceived and mischievous, with collateral motives. (¶¶ 13, 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment directing possession of the original khasras to the writ petitioner was set aside; no order as to costs.