<p>A bench of justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar rejected the plea that if a person fails to get relief from the competent authority he or she can approach the chief minister or other functionary for necessary relief.<br /><br />"The chief minister could not take upon himself task of the authority. It tantamount 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.<br />"However, it is not permissible to pass the order by the superior authority/court itself," Justice Chauhan writing the judgement said.<br /><br />The apex court passed the ruling dismissing the review petition filed by family of late Manohar Lal who was alloted a piece of land in commercial location of Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad by the then Uttar Pradesh chief minister in 1979, but subsequently cancelled on the directions of the Allahabad High Court.<br /><br />Though Lal was initially offered a piece of land in 1975 by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for his land acquired, he rejected the offer. Instead Lal approached the chief minister who issued direction for allotment of a land in the commercial despite the statute prohibiting any such allotment.<br /><br />The Allahabad High Court had quashed the allotment. He appealed in the Supreme Court which dismissed his plea. However, his legal heirs filed a review petition challenging the cancellation of his land. <br /><br />Dismissing the petition, the apex court said," 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.<br /><br />"The applicant Manohar Lal did not comply with the allotment letters dated 25.12.1975 or 25.1.1978, rather he had been making attempts to get the land of his choice in <br />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."<br /><br />The apex court said neither chief minsters nor courts have the power to make such allotments as the power is vested solely with the competent authority.<br /><br />"We do not find any force in the submission made by 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.<br /><br />"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 court's order.<br /><br />"The hon'ble chief minister passed the allotment letter himself mentioning the plot numbers of the land, which is impermissible in law," the bench added.</p>
<p>A bench of justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar rejected the plea that if a person fails to get relief from the competent authority he or she can approach the chief minister or other functionary for necessary relief.<br /><br />"The chief minister could not take upon himself task of the authority. It tantamount 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.<br />"However, it is not permissible to pass the order by the superior authority/court itself," Justice Chauhan writing the judgement said.<br /><br />The apex court passed the ruling dismissing the review petition filed by family of late Manohar Lal who was alloted a piece of land in commercial location of Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad by the then Uttar Pradesh chief minister in 1979, but subsequently cancelled on the directions of the Allahabad High Court.<br /><br />Though Lal was initially offered a piece of land in 1975 by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for his land acquired, he rejected the offer. Instead Lal approached the chief minister who issued direction for allotment of a land in the commercial despite the statute prohibiting any such allotment.<br /><br />The Allahabad High Court had quashed the allotment. He appealed in the Supreme Court which dismissed his plea. However, his legal heirs filed a review petition challenging the cancellation of his land. <br /><br />Dismissing the petition, the apex court said," 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.<br /><br />"The applicant Manohar Lal did not comply with the allotment letters dated 25.12.1975 or 25.1.1978, rather he had been making attempts to get the land of his choice in <br />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."<br /><br />The apex court said neither chief minsters nor courts have the power to make such allotments as the power is vested solely with the competent authority.<br /><br />"We do not find any force in the submission made by 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.<br /><br />"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 court's order.<br /><br />"The hon'ble chief minister passed the allotment letter himself mentioning the plot numbers of the land, which is impermissible in law," the bench added.</p>