Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh vs The State Of Maharashtra

Supreme Court4 November 2022M.M. Sundresh · M.R. Shah

SCC(2022) 16 SCC 624
Neutral2022 INSC 1168
SCR[2022] 13 SCR 1073

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a subordinate court or administrative authority has been directed by a final order of a higher court (here, a Division Bench order) to pass a fresh decision in a matter, that direction attains finality and the higher court ought not subsequently to set aside the orders passed in compliance with that direction on the sole ground that the subordinate authority lacked jurisdiction, as such lack of jurisdiction would have attached at the time of the original direction and not thereafter. An order of remand by a higher court to a subordinate authority to reconsider and pass a fresh decision carries with it the necessary authority and jurisdiction for the subordinate authority to pass that decision, and a subsequent court cannot go behind the finality of the remand order to strike down the decision passed in its compliance on jurisdictional grounds without examining the merits of the decision itself. Where a High Court sets aside administrative orders solely on jurisdictional grounds without considering the legality and validity of those orders on their merits and without deciding the rival claims of the parties on the substantive facts, the matter ought to be remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on the merits rather than allowing the jurisdictional objection to stand as the sole basis for quashing the orders.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NONREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 80148015 OF 2022

Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh …Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

common judgment and order dated 29.04.2022 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition

No. 2876/2022 and Writ Petition (WP) No. 9109/2021, by

which, the High Court has allowed WP No. 9109/2021

preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein (in Civil Appeal

Signature Not Verified arising out of WP No. 9109/2021) and has quashed and set Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2022.11.04 16:23:58 IST Reason: aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed by

1 the Deputy Collector, Pune Division and consequently

dismissed WP No. 2876/2022, the original writ petitioner

in WP No. 2876/2022 contesting respondent No. 1 in WP

No. 9109/2021 has preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are

as under:

2.1 That both, the appellant as well as contesting respondent

Nos. 1 to 4 (in Civil Appeal arising out of WP No.

9109/2021) are claiming to be project affected persons

whose lands were acquired for the public purpose. The

Sub Divisional Officer allotted the land in question vide

order dated 31.10.2018 in favour of respondent No. 1

herein (in Civil Appeal arising out of WP No. 9109/2021) –

Kaluram Mahadu Jadhav @ Kalooram Mahadoo Jadhav

under the Rehabilitation Scheme. Subsequently, the very

land which was allotted to Kaluram Jadhav came to be

allotted in favour of the appellant herein – Rajaram

Deshmukh by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune

Division vide order dated 21.02.2019. Respondent No. 1

herein – Kaluram Jadhav, therefore, filed WP No.

3126/2019 before the High Court challenging order of

2 allotment dated 21.02.2019 which was in favour of

Rajaram Deshmukh – appellant herein. The Division

Bench of the High Court disposed of the said writ petition,

remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector

(Rehabilitation) and directed to pass a fresh order of

allotment of the land in question expeditiously. That

thereafter, after giving opportunity to both the parties

including the coowners of land held by Kaluram Jadhav,

the Deputy Collector vide order dated 02.01.2020 passed a

fresh order of allotment in favour of Rajaram Deshmukh –

appellant herein and cancelled the order of allotment in

favour of Kaluram Jadhav. Thereafter, consequential order

dated 17.02.2020 came to be passed by the Deputy

Collector in favour of Rajaram Deshmukh allotting the

land in question. That thereafter the appellant herein

initiated the proceedings before the Talathi to mutate his

name in the revenue record as per the allotment order.

However, as the name of the appellant was not mutated in

the revenue record despite the allotment order, appellant

herein Rajaram Deshmukh filed WP No. 2876/2022

before the High Court. Simultaneously, respondent Nos. 1

3 to 4 filed WP No. 9109/2021 before the High Court

challenging the subsequent orders of allotment dated

02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 in favour of the appellant

herein. By the impugned common judgment and order the

High Court has set aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and

17.02.2020 and remanded the matter to the Additional

Collector solely on the ground that the Deputy Collector

did not possess the powers to pass the orders of allotment

and therefore, orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020

are bad in law and wholly without jurisdiction.

Consequently, the High Court has allowed WP No.

9109/2021 preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein and

disposed of WP No. 2876/2022 preferred by the appellant

herein. The impugned common judgment and order passed

by the High Court is the subject matter of the present

appeals.

3. Shri Nikhil Goel learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No. 1 – Kaluram Jadhav (in Civil Appeal arising

out of WP No. 9109/2021) has submitted that pursuant to

the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court the Additional Collector has passed a fresh order

4 which is in favour of respondent No. 1. It is submitted that

at the relevant time the Deputy Collector exercised the

powers of allotment as delegatee. However, subsequently

and before orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 were

passed the powers/authorities of Deputy Collector of Pune

Division of allotment was taken away and therefore, the

High Court has rightly observed that orders dated

02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 were coram nonjudice. It is

submitted that therefore as such no error has been

committed by the High Court in quashing and setting

aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 and

thereafter directing the Additional Collector to take a

decision afresh with regard to allotment of the land in

question.

3.1 Number of submissions have been made by learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties on

merits in support of their respective claims for allotment of

the land in question as project affected persons. However,

as the High Court has not at all decided the claims of

respective parties on merits and for the reasons stated

5 hereinbelow we propose to remand the matter to the High

Court, we are not considering the submissions on merits.

4. Now so far as the impugned common judgment and order

passed by the High Court is concerned the High Court has

set aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed

by the Deputy Collector solely on the ground that orders

were passed by the Deputy Collector without jurisdiction

and therefore, the same is coram nonjudice. However, it is

required to be noted that the Deputy Collector was

directed to take a fresh decision pursuant to order dated

11.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court in WP No. 3126/2019 which was as such in the writ

petition filed by respondent No. 1 – Kaluram Jadhav. The

order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of

the High Court in WP No. 3126/2019 by which the Deputy

Collector was directed to take a fresh decision attained the

finality. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have set

aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed by

the Deputy Collector on the ground that the same was

without jurisdiction and coram nonjudice. At this stage, it

is required to be noted that after order dated 02.01.2020,

6 the said order was sent to the Collector and thereafter, the

formal order of allotment dated 17.02.2020 was passed.

Therefore, the High Court has seriously erred in setting

aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on the

ground that the Deputy Collector was not having

jurisdiction and therefore order is coram non judice. Under

the circumstances impugned common judgment and order

passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside

orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on the aforesaid

ground is unsustainable. However, at the same time as the

High Court has not considered the legality and validity of

orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on merits and

has not considered the rival claims of the respective

parties on merits, the matter is required to be remanded to

the High Court for fresh decision to consider the legality

and validity of orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on

merits.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the

impugned common judgment and order dated 29.04.2022

passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside

orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 is hereby

7 quashed and set aside. The subsequent order dated

02.08.2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Pune

Division, which has been passed pursuant to the

impugned common judgment and order dated 29.04.2022

passed by the High Court is also quashed and set aside.

The matter is remitted to the High Court to decide the

aforesaid writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and

on its own merits.

6. Now, the High Court to consider the legality and validity of

orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on merits. It will

be open for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (in Civil Appeal arising

out of WP No. 9109/2021) to file impleadment

application(s) before the High Court and make the

submissions before the High Court as they were heard by

the Deputy Collector. The Writ Petition Nos. 2876/2022

and 9109/2021 are ordered to be restored on the file of the

High Court for a fresh decision on merits as observed

hereinabove. The present appeals are accordingly allowed.

However, it is made clear that we have not expressed

anything on merits in favour of either party on the legality

and validity of orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020

8 and the claims made by the rival parties and it is

ultimately for the High Court to consider the legality and

validity of the aforesaid orders in accordance with law and

on its own merits. The present appeals are accordingly

allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. NOVEMBER 04, 2022 [M.M. SUNDRESH]

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free