2005 Supreme(SC) 1217

2005(6) Supreme 541
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
G. Srinivas —Appellant
versus
Govt. of A.P. & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2447 of 2004
Decided on 20-9-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K.K. Venugopal and Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocates, K. Maruthi Rao, Mrs. K. Radha and Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K. Sundara Vardan and Vikash Singh, Sr. Advocates, Manoj Saxena, Amit Heharia, Mohanprasad Meharia, Ms. Arpita Duarah, M.D. Adkar, Braj Kishore Mishra, Vijay Kumar, Ms. Aparna Jha and Abhishek Singh, Advocates.

Headnote:Evacuee Property—Notification dated 15.9.1949 declaring all properties of Khaja Moinuddin Ansari as evacuee properties in terms of Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee Property Regulation—Appellant had been claiming title in a plot measuring 2 acres 38 guntas on basis of unregistered sale deed dated 11.11.1949 purported to have been executed by Khaja Moinuddin Ansari in favour of father of appellant—Plot was in village which was sarfekhas and after its merger in 1949 administration thereof vested in the State—Plot in question was stated to have been allotted in favour of Khaja Moinuddin Ansari by the Government—Said plot was derecognized by Government by order dated 9.1.1985—Collector in an inquiry opined that appellant’s case did not deserve consideration—In a writ petition single Judge held that notification issued under Evacuee Properties Regulation was bad in law—Division Bench set aside said judgment—Appeal—Appellant had not been given opportunity of hearing before Collector as he was merely asked to explain why words “supplementary sethwar” should not be deleted from Govt. order—Appellant deserved a further opportunity of hearing and impugned order were liable to be set aside.

       Held : In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary for us to consider the rival contentions raised at the bar in details. It is beyond any cavil that some findings were arrived at by the Government of A.P. in favour of the Appellant in terms of GOMs No. 955 dated 17.09.1992. The said order, however, may not be said to have attained finality in the sense that the Collector had been specifically directed to issue a supplementary sethwar in the name of the Appellant and he was supposed to do so upon satisfying himself in that behalf. Such a satisfaction on the part of the Collector could be arrived at only upon application of mind on the claim of the Appellant. If during inquiry, the Collector came to know that the property in question was in fact an evacuee property and both Khaja Moinuddin Ansari and Khaja Moin Nawab were one and the same person, nothing prevented him from bringing the same to the notice of the State. The State also cannot be said to have acted illegally or without jurisdiction in issuing the show cause notice to the Appellant inter alia for rectifying the mistakes as evidently the said fact had not been brought to its notice before issuing GOMs. No. 995 dated 17.09.1992. However, despite the fact that the Appellant had availed the opportunities to respond to the questions raised by the Collector in the notice dated 16.07.1994 he was merely asked to explain as to why the words ‘supplementary sethwar’ should not be deleted from the GOMs. No. 955 dated 17.09.1992. If the intention of the State was to recall the entire order being GOMs. No. 955 dated 17.09.1992, it should have said so explicitly Mr. Sundara Vardan may be right in his submission that when the Appellant had been given ample opportunities of hearing and he had filed a detailed written submission, it was not necessary for the State to issue a second show cause notice but the fact remains that such a notice was issued. We are not oblivious of the fact that in response to the notice dated 16.07.1994, the learned Advocate appeared for the Appellant before the Minister for Revenue and filed written submissions on 23.07.1994. Yet again in response to the notice dated 14.06.1996, the learned Advocate for the Appellant appeared and filed a detailed representation on 21.06.1996 and also argued the matter. Yet again pursuant to the notice dated 08.11.1996, the parties were heard on 16.11.1996. However, the notice issued on 08.11.1996 does not appear to have been served asking the counsel for the Appellant to appear on 16.11.1996. Furthermore, while passing the order dated 30.11.1996, the Minister for Revenue does not appear to have taken, into consideration the representation of the Appellant for further hearing filed on 29.11.1996. An order passed by mistake and ignorance of the relevant facts indisputably can be reviewed, if inter alia, it is found that a fraud was practised or there was wilful suppression on the part of the Appellant. It is in the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that a further opportunity of hearing may be given to the Appellant. For the aforementioned purpose, it is not necessary for the State to issue another notice inasmuch as in view of the allegations and counter allegations made in the writ petition, special leave petition as also the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondents, each party before us is aware of the contentions raised on behalf of the other side. The appropriate authority of the State may, therefore, give an opportunity to the Appellant to be heard and an appropriate order may be passed thereafter. (Paras 18 to 21)