State's power of superintendence justifies cancellation of land allotments obtained through misrepresentation or lack of verification.

The Petitioner, a Project Affected Person (PAP) whose land was acquired for the Temghar Dam Project, sought allotment of alternate land.

Based on an application claiming a family size of thirteen members, the Petitioner was allotted 80R of land across Gat No. 2035/2 and Gat No. 358/2 by an order dated March 6, 2024.

Subsequently, a third party (Mr. Wable) challenged this allotment, alleging it included his cultivated land and was obtained through misinformation.

An inquiry report by the Additional Collector dated September 10, 2025, revealed that the Petitioner failed to produce evidence of the thirteen family members and that the land records (8A extract) did not correspond to the required cut-off date.

Consequently, Respondent No. 6 issued an order on November 4, 2025, cancelling the allotment.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash this cancellation on the grounds of violation of natural justice.

1. Whether the order dated November 4, 2025, cancelling the land allotment, was legally sustainable despite the Petitioner’s claim of a lack of a personal hearing.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s entitlement to alternate land was correctly determined based on verified family size and land-holding records.

The Court applied the principle of administrative oversight, noting that the State Government holds powers of superintendence and control over the actions of the Collector to issue corrective directions.

It relied on the precedent set in Tukaram Dhondi Sutar v. Nana Bhau Tibile regarding the Government's power to rectify erroneous land allotments.

Furthermore, the Court invoked the fundamental legal maxim established in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. V. Jagannath, which holds that any judgment or order obtained by playing fraud on an authority is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of the law.

The Court found that the Petitioner’s claim for 80R of land was predicated on having thirteen family members, a fact which remained unverified and unsupported by evidence during the Collector's inquiry.

The State's affidavit confirmed that the allotment was made without verifying the number of family members as of the cut-off date or the total land-holding.

Although the Petitioner argued a breach of natural justice, the Court determined that the underlying allotment was based on false information, thus justifying the State’s corrective intervention.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's insistence on upholding the original allotment, noting that the Petitioner was unwilling to re-apply based on actual eligibility.

It concluded that the State was within its rights to cancel an allotment obtained through misrepresentation.

The court held that the Petitioner may make a fresh application with authentic material documents to prove eligibility.

The Court issued a series of directions: (i) the Secretary of the Relief and Rehabilitation Department must investigate systemic irregularities in the Temghar Dam Project land allotments; (ii) disciplinary action must be taken against the officials who failed to verify documents; and (iii) appropriate action must be taken against the Petitioner for misleading the authorities.

A compliance report is due by November 2, 2026. Request for stay of the order was rejected.