Dal Chand Vs. Ram Dayal & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2771 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16748 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16748 of 1999)
Petitioner: Dal Chand
Respondent: Ram Dayal & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2771 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16748 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16748 of 1999)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & S. S. MOHAMMED Quadri, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 20, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 226, 136 – Grant of patta for fishing to one – Challenge by other – Patta found to be granted after considering negotiations by other party. Held that second party should not have challenged the grant. Appeal allowed.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. Patta was issued by grant of fishing rights to the Appellant pursuant to the claims of the Appellant as well as the Respond-ents being considered by the Collector. We are informed that the basis of accepting the claim of the Appellant for issuance of the patta was that the need of the Appellant was greater.
3. Thereafter, the Respondents filed the Writ Petition and the grant of the patta was quashed on the ground that there was no public notice before the grant of the patta. Without expressing any opinion on the action of the Collector in granting patta to the Appellant, we are of the view that as far as the Respondents are concerned having participated in the negotiations they clear-ly give their consent to the grant of patta not by way of auction but by adopting the said procedure. The procedure of negotiations and the consideration of rival claims having been accepted the Respondents could not, on the facts of this case, challenge the grant of the patta to the Appellant when the Respondents were unsuccessful. On this ground alone, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside.
1. Special leave granted.
2. Patta was issued by grant of fishing rights to the Appellant pursuant to the claims of the Appellant as well as the Respond-ents being considered by the Collector. We are informed that the basis of accepting the claim of the Appellant for issuance of the patta was that the need of the Appellant was greater.
3. Thereafter, the Respondents filed the Writ Petition and the grant of the patta was quashed on the ground that there was no public notice before the grant of the patta. Without expressing any opinion on the action of the Collector in granting patta to the Appellant, we are of the view that as far as the Respondents are concerned having participated in the negotiations they clear-ly give their consent to the grant of patta not by way of auction but by adopting the said procedure. The procedure of negotiations and the consideration of rival claims having been accepted the Respondents could not, on the facts of this case, challenge the grant of the patta to the Appellant when the Respondents were unsuccessful. On this ground alone, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside.
