Order against dead persons is a nullity; breach of natural justice overrides alternative remedy and delay.

The petitioners challenged an order dated September 30, 2024, issued by the Additional Collector, District Sheopur, which cancelled land allotments (pattas) originally granted to Geeta Bai and Savitri Devi on the grounds that the grants were doubtful.

The petitioners, being the legal heir of Geeta Bai and a purchaser from the heir of Savitri Devi, contended that the original allottees had passed away in 2022 and 2009 respectively, long before the impugned order was passed.

The State opposed the petition on grounds of a one-and-a-half-year delay, the availability of alternative statutory remedies under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, and allegations of fraud in obtaining the pattas.

1. Whether an administrative or quasi-judicial order passed against deceased persons constitutes a legal nullity.

2. Whether the petition should be dismissed on the grounds of delay, laches, or the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.

The court applied the fundamental principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned unheard, noting that an order passed against a dead person is a nullity in the eyes of law.

The court followed the principle that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where there is a gross violation of natural justice or the order is a nullity.

The court acknowledged but distinguished precedents cited by the State regarding delay (State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai) and alternative remedies (Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh), finding them inapplicable to void orders.

The court found that the deaths of the original patta holders prior to the 2024 order were undisputed facts.

Since the authority failed to implead or notice the legal representatives before cancelling the allotments, the court reasoned that the proceedings were fundamentally flawed.

The court rejected the State's argument on delay and laches, holding that procedural technicalities cannot validate an order that is a legal nullity.

Furthermore, the court determined that the requirement to exhaust alternative remedies is waived when an order is passed in "utter violation" of natural justice.

Finally, the court noted that allegations of fraud or misrepresentation are merits-based issues that the petitioners must be given a fair opportunity to rebut in a fresh hearing.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated September 30, 2024, specifically regarding the pattas of Geeta Bai and Savitri Devi. The matter was remitted to the competent authority for fresh adjudication after providing a due opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives and other interested parties.