Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri D.D. Thakur, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that in view of the finding recorded by the trial Court as upheld by the single Judge that the appellant was in possession of the property, he is entitled to the decree for possession. The suit based on possessory title is, therefore, valid in law. He contends that Rules made by the Mandi Committee for allotment of the land were duly approved by Rajpramukh; the Tehsildar was empowered under Rule 5 to grant patta in favour of the allottee; the Tehsildar accordingly had granted the patta to the appellant; therefore, the grant is valid in law, though it was not executed in the manner contemplated by Article 299 of the Constitution. The appellant having paid the consideration and was put in possession and also having constructed shops upto plinth level, the non-compliance of execution of the deed in the letter and spirit of Article 299 does not take away the right of the appellant to be in legal and valid possession of the property. In support thereof, he placed reliance on Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander & Ors. [(1968) 3 SCR 163], Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani vs. Moreshwar Parashram & Ors. [(1954) SCC 817], M/s. Davecos Garments Factory vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1971 SC 141] and M. Mohamma vs. Union of India [AIR 1982 Bom. 443]. He also contends that the respondent had not pleaded invalidity of the patta violating Article 299 of the Constitution. Therefore, the plea could not be permitted to be raised for the first time in the Letter Patents Appeal. In support thereof, he relied upon the decision of this Court in Nirod Baran Banerjee vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hazaribagh [(1980) 3 SCC 5]. He contends that the appellant had constructed the shops; he was in possession and the finding that he is in possession would aid his right to seek possession even if he was wrongfully dispossessed by the respondent who has no better title than the appellant.

It is seen that the appellant was admittedly allotted the aforestated two plots after receiving consideration, i.e., Nazarana by the Mandi Committee for construction of shops. It is true that in the plaint, no specific prayer was made seeking declaration of the invalidity of the cancellation of patta granted to the appellant or invalidity of the patta granted in favour of Ram Gopal. In fact, in the written statement these pleas were raised by Ram Gopal, the respondent. On that basis, the issues came to be settled. The trial Court had gone into all the questions and recorded the finding against the respondents that grant of patta to Ram Gopal was invalid and also cancellation of patta of the appellant was illegal. Before the learned single Judge of the appellate Court, when the respondent carried the matter against the decree of the trial Court, the main concentration was on those issues. Even the findings of possession of the appellant was neither disputed nor directly addressed. Learned single Judge has gone in depth on those issues and held that the cancellation of the patta in favour of the appellant is bad in law. Equally, it was held that the grant of the patta in favour of the respondent was also not bona fide. Under these circumstances, the findings recorded by the trial Court that the appellant was in possession and that he remained in possession were allowed to become final. As regards the findings as to the invalidity of the grant of patta in favour of the respondent and cancellation of the patta of the appellant, they were allowed to become final since these questions were not canvassed before the Division Bench in the LPA. As stated earlier, the only question was as to the invalidity of the patta not having been executed in compliance with Article 299, on the basis of several judgments in that behalf. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that execution of the patta in conformity with Article 299 of the Constitution s mandatory and the failure of compliance thereof renders the grant of patta void. The correctness of this proposition was not and could not be canvassed by Shri Thakur. But he focused the attention on the Rules made by the Committee as approved by the Rajpramukh and the grant made in furtherance thereof to the respondent. Land was acquired by the Government for allotment to traders for construction of shops and Mandi Committee was duly constituted for that purpose. It is seen that, admittedly, after the Rules were made by the Mandi Committee, the same were submitted to the Government for approval. The Rajpramukh did give approval for the same. Thus, Rules had legal sanction for allotment of the plots to the traders in accordance therewith. The allotment requires to be made by the Tehsildar and the Chair man of the Committee and the Tehsildar under Rule 5 was empowered to grant the patta and deliver possession thereof. In fact, that procedure was followed, allotment of two plots was made to the appellant by the Committee and the Tehsildar granted patta. There was no vice or violation of Rules. No vice or violation of Rules was pointed to the Division Bench nor even to us. These facts are also not in dispute. Thus, it would be clear that the allotment made to the appellant was made in accordance with Rules for public purpose and the appellant was put in possession accordingly. He, as a fact, started construction upto plinth level. The cancellation was not valid as found by the trial Court and the learned single Judge.

Under these circumstances, the question arises; whether the failure to execute the patta in conformity with Article 299(1) of the Constitution renders the grant thereof to the appellant void? It is seen that when the Rules are made for grant of patta, the necessary implication is that the grant must, of necessity be, in conformity with Article 299(1) of the Constitution as modulated or modified, as per the Rules made by the Government. In view of the finding recorded earlier that admittedly Tehsildar and Chairman of the Committee was authorised to grant patta, the Tehsildar did grant patta and deliver possession in terms thereof after receipt of the consideration and the Tehsildar put the appellant in possession of the plots. Thereby, he became the absolute owner of the property. It is seen that in a quick succession after the cancellation of patta on October 4, 1956, Ram Gopal made two successive applications on October 7, 1956, on the same day the patta was granted to him and possession was delivered on October 8, 1956. But the same was, admittedly, stayed by the Collector in this proceedings on the even date. In D.G. Factory case (supra), the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan had executed an agreement on March 22, 1960 with the appellant therein. The said agreement was not in conformity with Article 299(1) of the Constitution. The Inspector General had duly been authorised to execute the agreement on behalf of the State. But he did not express that he had executed it on behalf of the Governor but he signed in his capacity as Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan. On those facts, this Court had held that the Inspector General, having duly executed the contract, though it was not expressed to be on behalf of the Governor and though it was not in full compliance with the requirement of Article 299(12), it was in substance an agreement executed by the Rajpramukh. In Union of India vs. A.L. Rallia Ram [(1964) 3 SCR 164], the tenders were accepted by the Chief Director of Purchases on behalf of the Government. The question arose; whether it was in compliance of Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 which is analogous to Art.299(1). He has signed in his official designation, though he did not state that he had executed it on behalf of the Governor General. The Court read into it and found that in the light of the applications undertaken, it would be reasonable to hold that the contract was executed on behalf of the Governor General. Thus, it would be clear that when the Rules, duly approved by the Rajpramukh, authorised Mandi Committee represented by the Chairman and the Tehsildar to allot the plots of land to the traders and did, in fact, in accordance with that Rules allotted the same after receipt of the consideration and subsequent thereto, the Tehsildar, having been authorised to deliver possession and did in fact deliver the possession, the execution of the grant of the patta who was in conformity with the Rules and in substance on behalf of the Governor. Thus, the grant of the patta of the respondent was still-born. Under these circumstances, the trial Court as well as the learned single Judge rightly held that the cancellation of patta of the appellant is bad in law and the grant of patta to the respondent was not valid.

It was accordingly held that though the contract was not executed in the form prescribed under Article 299(1), nonetheless the consequential benefits could be had under the contract since the Government was the beneficiary and restitution could be ordered under Section 70 of the Contract Act. The same view was reiterated in D.G. Factory case.

It would, thus, be clear that though the contract was not executed strictly in conformity with Article 299(1) of the Constitution but it is in conformity with the Rules approved by the Rajpramukh. The contract is not void, though it was not executed in terms of Article 299(1). Here, we may dispose of this case with an observation that initial allotment itself was not tainted with fraud or illegal consideration or any such circumstances which would render the allotment as having been made in fraud or abuse of power or with oblique consideration.