An adverse order affecting a deceased allottee is invalid without hearing his legal representatives.

Land belonging to the original allottee, Respondent No. 10, was acquired for the Veer Baji Pasalkar Dam Project.

In 2016, alternate lands, including Gat No. 348/1, were allotted to him; following a conversion order dated 3 April 2017, the petitioner purchased Gat No. 348/1 on 28 April 2017.

Respondent No. 9 challenged the allotment, alleging excess allotment and prior allotments to the affected co-holders.

By order dated 2 January 2020, the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) directed the Collector’s name to be recorded and ordered an inquiry into further allotment.

Respondent No. 10 had died before it was made, and his legal representatives had not been brought before the Authority.

Whether Respondent No. 9 had standing to challenge the allotment, and whether the petitioner had standing to challenge the order affecting the land he claimed to have purchased.

Whether Respondent No. 10’s entitlement to alternate land, and the legality of the petitioner’s subsequent purchase, could be determined without examining the applicable rehabilitation policy, joint holding, earlier allotments and conditions of grant.

Whether the impugned order could stand when it was made after Respondent No. 10’s death without notice to his legal representatives, and without clearly establishing the Authority’s jurisdiction to reopen the earlier order.

Under Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector, (2012) 4 SCC 407, a person seeking to challenge an act must show injury to a legally protected right; a general or remote grievance does not confer standing.

The Government Resolution dated 9 May 1973 governed the relevant rehabilitation entitlement: allotment was subject to the prescribed formula, the nature and area of land lost, family or economic holding, and applicable maximum limits.

A transferee cannot obtain a better right than the original allottee, and registration of a sale deed does not by itself validate a transfer contrary to the allotment terms or applicable law.

Where an authority proposes to affect rights arising from an allotment after the allottee’s death, the legal representatives of the deceased must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The Authority must also identify the legal source of any power to reopen its earlier order and determine limitation under the provision applicable to the proceeding.

Sections 247 and 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, were raised by the petitioner in argument, but the Court left the proceeding’s jurisdiction and maintainability for determination on remand.

Respondent No. 9’s assertion that his predecessor continued to possess or cultivate the acquired land did not establish a right in the alternate land allotted to Respondent No. 10; the petitioner, however, had sufficient standing because the impugned order affected land recorded in his name.

The petitioner’s standing did not establish title: his claim derived from the original allottee, and the entitlement and transfer had to be assessed against the 1973 Government Resolution, the joint holding, prior allotments, and the conditions of the 2016 grant.

The Court found the impugned order procedurally defective because it affected the deceased allottee’s rights without bringing his legal representatives on record. It also lacked a clear determination of the power to reopen the 2017 order and of the extent of any excess allotment.

These matters required fresh consideration by the competent Authority; the Court made no finding that the sale deed was valid or that the petitioner held title.

The Authority must examine the entitlement under the 9 May 1973 Government Resolution, earlier allotments, the 2016 allotment, the 2017 conversion, the sale deed, and the jurisdiction and maintainability of the proceedings, including the effect of the earlier order dated 14 December 2017.

The Court left the validity of the sale deed and the petitioner’s title open, directed the Authority to decide preferably within four months, and ordered status quo regarding the nature and possession of the lands until the fresh decision.