REPORTABLE                      

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1292 OF 2010

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 973 OF 2007

Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs.                                          ....  Petitioner

Versus

Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. & Ors.                                            …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The  review  petition  has  been  filed  against  the  judgment  and  

order dated 3.6.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 973 of  

2007.  This Court has disposed of the said civil appeal by a detailed  

judgment in Manohar Lal (Dead) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen (Dead) by Lrs.  

& Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2210.

2. While deciding the appeal this Court proceeded on the following  

facts:  

A. Land belonging to the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants,  

(hereinafter called `Shri Manohar Lal’), alongwith a huge area of land  

belonging  to  a  very  large  number  of  persons,  stood  notified  under  

Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as `Act ’)  

on 13.8.1962.  Declarations under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the  

same were made on 24.5.1965 and 13.1.1969 alongwith Notification  

under  Section  17(1)  of  the  Act  invoking  the  urgency  clause.  

Possession of the lands was taken in pursuance thereof and award was  

made under Section 11 of the Act on 11.5.1970,  so far as the land of  

Shri Manohar Lal was concerned.    

B. The Government of Uttar Pradesh had framed the land policy  

dated 30/31.7.1963 to the effect that person aggrieved shall be allotted  

the developed land in residential area to the extent of 40% of the area  

of the land acquired provided the applicant fulfils the other conditions,  

namely, apply in writing within a period of one month from the date of  

acquisition; deposit  the amount of compensation so received, if any,  

and other development charges within a period of one month after the  

allotment.   

2

C. Shri  Manohar  Lal  claimed  to  have  filed  an  application  on  

22.6.1969.   Land was allotted to him in year 1975, which was not  

accepted by him.  The allottee did not comply with any of the terms of  

allotment rather asked to cancel the allotment and allot him the land of  

his choice at another place.  Shri Manohar Lal was allotted the land  

vide order dated 27.12.1979 as per the direction of the Hon’ble Chief  

Minister in the commercial area.   

2.  This  Court  quashed  the  said  allotment  dated  27.12.1979  on  

grounds,  inter-alia, that Shri Manohar Lal did not deposit the amount  

required under the Scheme within the stipulated period, when he was  

allotted  the  land  by  Ghaziabad  Development  Authority  (hereinafter  

called as `Authority’), rather he had been asking another land of his  

choice,  and therefore,  the  earlier  allotment  was  cancelled.   He kept  

quite  for  years  together  and,  subsequently,  approached  the  Hon’ble  

Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh who was not a competent  

Authority under the Act, therefore, the order of allotment made by him  

was not enforceable.   The land allotted to Shri  Manohar Lal was in  

commercial area and not meant for residential use, which was contrary  

to the terms of land Policy.  

3

3. The review application has been filed primarily on the ground  

that certain affidavits were filed by the Authority during the hearing of  

the  appeal  and the  applicants  did  not  have sufficient  opportunity  to  

rebut the same or under the prevailing circumstances, could not file the  

reply in rebuttal and some relevant documents were also not made part  

of the record. In view thereof, this Court vide orders dated 26.8.2010  

and 29.10.2010, directed the parties to produce the allotment letter in  

favour of Shri Manohar Lal issued in year 1975 and the letter of non-

acceptance by him, and further to furnish information as how many  

persons  whose  land  were  acquired  in  pursuance  of  the  same  

Notification under Section 4 of the Act were granted the benefit of the  

land Scheme.   

4. Both  the  parties  submitted  their  affidavits  in  response  to  the  

aforesaid orders.  The applicants have submitted that they were not in  

possession of the letter of allotment made by the Authority in favour of  

Shri Manohar Lal in year 1975 or his letter of refusal of acceptance of  

the same.  However, they have submitted that the allotment of the land  

was made vide letter dated 22.12.1975 in favour of Shri Manohar Lal  

which  was  very  far  away  from his  land,  which  had  been  acquired.  

Thus, he declined to accept the offer and, subsequently,  he was not  

4

allotted the land. Thus, he approached the Hon’ble Chief Minister for  

justice.     

5. On the other hand, the Authority produced orders to show that  

Shri  Manohar  Lal  was  allotted  land  vide  letter  dated  22.12.1975,  

however,  he did not  deposit  any amount as  required under the  said  

allotment letter.  Shri Manohar Lal vide letter dated 21.1.1976 refused  

to accept the said allotment rather asked for cancellation of the same.  

He approached the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and got the  

letter of allotment of land directly in commercial area, which was not  

permissible under the Scheme.  There is a letter dated 12.5.1978 on  

record to the effect that the change of land sought by Shri Manohar Lal  

vide application dated 3.5.1978 was not possible and, thus, he should  

deposit the development charges etc., within a period of 15 days, and in  

case of failure, it would be presumed that he was no more interested in  

allotment of land and the offer so made would stand cancelled.  

6. The letter dated 22.12.1975 reveals that Shri Manohar Lal was  

allotted the land measuring 6568.29 sq.mtrs., and for that the  estimated  

development cost was Rs.2,50,448.90 which was subjected to variation  

and he was asked to deposit 20 per cent of the development charges  

5

amounting to Rs. 50089.78 through bank draft within a period of one  

month and deposit the remaining amount in eight equal instalments.   

7.  Letter dated 21.1.1976 sent by Shri Manohar Lal in response of  

the  letter of allotment dated 22.12.1975 reveals that the land so offered  

was not acceptable to him as he wanted the land of his choice in plot  

nos.  1  to  44,  L-Block,  Sector  3,  Nehru Nagar.   Thus,  he asked the  

Authority to cancel the allotment dated 22.12.1975 and allot him the  

aforesaid land of his choice.  It appears that Shri Manohar Lal had been  

pursuing his demand of alternative land without ensuring compliance  

of  the  terms  incorporated  in  the  allotment  letter  dated  22.12.1975.  

However, while considering his application for allotment of other land,  

the Authority vide letter dated 25.1.1978 made allotment of  alternative  

land in Nehru Nagar (West) having equal area and vide said letter he  

was  asked  to  complete  the  other  formalities  for  execution  of  the  

agreement  after  depositing  the  due  amount  within  a  period  of  one  

month  from  the  said  date.   However,  the  allotment  made  by  the  

Authority vide letter dated 25.1.1978 was also not acceptable to him.  

Shri Manohar Lal made an application dated 3.5.1978 to allot him the  

land of his choice, which stood rejected by the Authority vide order  

dated 12.5.1978.   

6

8. After expiry of more than a year, Shri Manohar Lal  approached  

the State Government stating that  his land had been acquired in year  

1969 for residential use and he had not been allotted the land under the  

land  Policy.   Thus,  justice  be  done  to  him.  While  considering  his  

representation,  the  Secretary,  Urban  Development,  vide  letter  dated  

14.6.1979 asked the Authority as to why the land had not been made  

available to Shri Manohar Lal.  After seeking clarification, Hon’ble the  

Chief Minister issued directions to the Authority to make the allotment  

of  land  in  plot  nos.  1  to  44  as  sought  by  Shri  Manohar  Lal,  

immediately.  In pursuance thereof, letter dated 12.11.1979 was issued  

by the Deputy Secretary,  State Government,  Housing Section to the  

Authority to make the allotment of plot nos. 1 to 44, L- Block, Sector –  

3, Nehru Nagar and, in pursuance thereof, the allotment was made to  

him.   

9. The  matter  came  under  litigation  when  opposite  party  Shri  

Ugrasen  raised  certain  objections  in  respect  of  land  allotted  to  Shri  

Manohar  Lal.   In  spite  of  the  matter  pending  in  the  High  Court,  

wherein  the interim order  directing the Authority not to allot the said  

land in favour of anybody had  been passed, lease deed dated 28.3.1989  

was executed by the Authority in favour of Shri Manohar Lal.  

7

10. It  is  in  this  backdrop,  we have to  examine as  to  whether  the  

judgment and order sought to be reviewed, requires reconsideration.  

11. Though  a  large  number  of  persons  had  been  displaced  but  it  

appears that only 3-4 families had been allotted the land in pursuance  

of the land Policy including Shri Manohar Lal and his brothers and the  

admitted facts remained that in spite of the allotment of the land in his  

favour under the land Policy on 22.12.1975, Shri Manohar Lal did not  

deposit any amount, rather vide application dated 21.1.1976 asked for  

allotment of another land cancelling the said allotment. Fresh allotment  

was made vide letter dated 25.1.1978 which was also not acceptable to  

him and he did not deposit any amount or made any attempt to get the  

lease deed executed rather   approached the Hon’ble  Chief  Minister,  

who was not the competent Authority under the law for allotment of  

the land.  

12. The land  Policy  did  not  provide  the  allotment  of  land  of  the  

choice of the tenure-holder.  It was not permissible for any Authority to  

make the allotment in commercial  area,  as allotment could be made  

only in residential area.  Shri Manohar Lal – applicant did not comply  

with the allotment letters dated 25.12.1975 or 25.1.1978 rather he had  

8

been making attempts to get the land of his choice in commercial area  

and, consequently,  succeeded by getting a patently and latently illegal  

allotment by the blessings of the then  Hon’ble Chief Minister who had  

no competence to make allotment of land under the law.

13.     We do not find any force in the submission made by Shri Jayant  

Bhushan, learned counsel for applicants, that a person who does not get  

relief from the Statutory Authority, has a right to make representation  

before the Government;  as in the instant  case,  Government  of Uttar  

Pradesh was a revisional Authority which could entertain the revision  

against the order of  appellate Authority.  In an appropriate case, the  

Court  may  issue  appropriate  directions  to  redress  the  grievance  of  

person aggrieved but even the court cannot direct a person to decide the  

representation unless the person so directed is a Competent Authority  

under the Statute,  for the reason that  the authority may grant  relief,  

which  otherwise  the  authority  has  no  competence  to  grant  taking  

shelter  under  the  order  of  the  court.   Even  authority  may  grant  

undeserving relief in pursuance of order passed by the court though the  

case  may  be  undeserving  or  time  barred  and  under  the  bonafide  

impression that the Authority was bound to grant the relief.  Authority  

may also grant the relief while deciding the representation on account  

9

of  collusion/connivance  between  persons  making  the  representation  

and the authority deciding the representation. (Vide:  A.P.S.R.T.C. &  

Ors.  v.  G.  Srinivas  Reddy  &  Ors., AIR  2006  SC  1465;  and  

Employees  State  Insurance  Corporation  v.  All  India  ITDC  

Employees Union & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 257).  

14. The Hon’ble Chief Minister passed the allotment letter himself  

mentioning  the  plot  numbers  of  the  land,  as  it  was  the  Authority  

himself which is impermissible in law. The Chief Minister could not  

take upon himself task of the authority. It tantamounts to transgression/  

usurpation of competence.  While deciding a representation/petition, an  

authority  or  court  may  issue  direction  to  the  person  concerned  to  

consider the grievance. However, it is not permissible to pass the order  

by  the  superior  authority/court  itself.  (Vide:  G.  Veerappa  Pillai  v.  

Raman   and  Raman  Ltd.,  AIR  1952  SC  192;  Life  Insurance  

Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar & Anr.,  

AIR 1994 SC 2148; and H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh  

Thakur & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2620).

10

15. In view the above, we do not find any good ground to entertain  

the review application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.  

         ………..…………………J.      (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

            …………………………..J.

New Delhi,       (SWATANTER KUMAR) August 24, 2011

11