2011 (8) TMI 1089 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether as the land in question belongs to the Revenue Department of the State of Rajasthan and the PHED had no jurisdiction whatsoever to restore 460.15 bighas of land in favour of the respondents herein?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of PHED in granting land.
2. Validity of the order dated 23.04.1969.
3. Application of the principle of res judicata.
4. Legitimacy of Civil Court's jurisdiction under the Land Revenue Act.
5. Public interest concerning land within the catchment area.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of PHED in Granting Land:
The core issue revolves around the grant of 460.15 bighas of land by the PHED to the respondents on 23.04.1969. The State contended that the PHED lacked jurisdiction to allot the land, as the authority to grant land resided solely with the Land Revenue Department under the Land Revenue Act. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the PHED was not empowered to transfer such a significant portion of land, making the allotment ex facie without jurisdiction.

2. Validity of the Order Dated 23.04.1969:
The validity of the order dated 23.04.1969 was a significant point of contention. The State argued that the order was invalid as it was based on a flawed premise, given the land's earlier cancellation in 1942 and the subsequent compensation paid in 1949. The Supreme Court found that the order had not been adjudicated on merits by any appellate or revisional forum and directed the State Government to re-examine the validity of the order, ensuring due process and an opportunity for the respondents to present their case.

3. Application of the Principle of Res Judicata:
The respondents argued that the principle of res judicata applied, preventing the re-litigation of the matter. However, the Supreme Court clarified that res judicata does not apply when a decree is a nullity due to the court's lack of jurisdiction. The Court cited precedents, including *Sabitri Dei and Others vs. Sarat Chandra Rout and Others* and *Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra*, to emphasize that a decree passed without jurisdiction is void ab initio and does not bind the parties.

4. Legitimacy of Civil Court's Jurisdiction under the Land Revenue Act:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was ousted by Section 259 of the Land Revenue Act. Any decree passed contrary to this provision is null and void. The Court noted that the Munsif Magistrate's decree dated 30.06.1982, which restrained the State Government from altering the contract, did not address the merits of the allotment's validity and was thus a nullity.

5. Public Interest Concerning Land within the Catchment Area:
The Court recognized the public interest implications, noting that the land in question was part of the catchment area for a canal, and any obstruction to the water flow was against public interest. The Court accepted the intervenor's statement that no land should be allotted if it obstructs water flow, reiterating this principle in several orders. The Court directed the State Government to consider this public interest aspect while re-examining the matter.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 14.10.2003 and directed the Revenue Department of the State of Rajasthan to decide the matter afresh within four months. The Court emphasized the need for proper adjudication on the merits of the land allotment, considering jurisdictional authority, public interest, and ensuring due process. Both appeals were allowed, with no order as to costs.