AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.—By order dated 17-12-1999, a learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following issue arising in the above writ petitions for decision of this Full Bench:
"Whether the State Government can exercise the power of reconveying the land to the original owner or his legal representatives under Board Standing Orders, BSO 90 (32) in the teeth of the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another, and Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, ."
During the course of the arguments in the matter, it has been brought to our notice that the State Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 783, Revenue (LA) Department, dated 9-10-1998 substituting paragraph 32 of the BSO 90. Thus, in view of this G.O. the issue raised and referred to this Full Bench has become academic only and the same does not survive for consideration by us. Consequently the writ petitions that have been filed seeking enforcement of para 32 of the BSO 90 became infructuous and are accordingly dismissed as infructuous. The petitioners, however, will be at liberty to challenge G.O.Ms. No. 783, dated 9-10-1998, if so advised, in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. They are permitted to raise all questions available to them. They are at liberty to raise all pleas on fact as well as law. Dismissal of this writ petition as infructuous will not be a defence available to the State. There shall be no order as to costs.