2010 (6) TMI 751 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the State Government - a Revisional Authority under the Statute, could take upon itself the task of a lower statutory authority? Whether the order passed or action taken by a statutory authority in contravention of the interim order of the Court is enforceable? Whether Court can grant relief which had not been asked for?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the State Government, as a Revisional Authority under the Statute, could take upon itself the task of a lower statutory authority.
2. Whether the order passed or action taken by a statutory authority in contravention of the interim order of the Court is enforceable.
3. Whether the Court can grant relief which had not been asked for.

Detailed Analysis:

1. State Government as Revisional Authority:
The court examined whether the State Government could exercise the functions of a lower statutory authority. It was concluded that the State Government, being a revisional authority, could not directly entertain applications for land allotment and issue directions to the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA). The court cited several precedents, including *Rakesh Ranjan Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.*, which held that higher authorities cannot usurp the functions of statutory bodies. The court emphasized that the State Government can only issue policy directions and cannot deal with individual applications, as this would amount to a colorable exercise of power.

2. Contravention of Interim Order:
The court considered whether actions taken by the State Government and GDA in contravention of the interim order of the High Court were enforceable. It was established that any order passed in violation of an interim order is a nullity and unenforceable. The court referenced *Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj*, which held that actions taken in disobedience of court orders are illegal. The court found that the State Government and GDA were aware of the interim order restraining the allotment of land to anyone else but still proceeded with the allotment to Ugrasen, rendering their actions null and void.

3. Relief Not Asked For:
The court addressed whether the High Court could grant relief not specifically prayed for by the parties. It was held that the High Court erred in directing the allotment of land to Ugrasen when he had only sought the quashing of the allotment made to Manohar Lal. The court cited *Messrs. Trojan & Co. Vs. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar*, which established that relief cannot be granted on grounds outside the pleadings. The court reiterated that relief not claimed cannot be granted, emphasizing that Ugrasen's land was acquired for roads, making him ineligible for the benefit under the Land Policy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the GDA, setting aside the High Court's judgment and order dated 22.7.2003, which had quashed the allotment of land made in favor of Manohar Lal and directed allotment to Ugrasen. The court dismissed the appeal filed by Manohar Lal, finding that both the State Government and GDA acted beyond their statutory authority and in contravention of the interim order, and that the High Court granted relief not asked for by Ugrasen. The court left it open for the State Government and GDA to take appropriate actions regarding the recovery of possession of the land allotted contrary to the Land Policy.