Violation of rules of natural justice requires reconsideration and fresh decision in accordance with the law.

Birendra Prasad Verma, J.

1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned AC to GP 9, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioners had originally filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the right, title, interest and possession of the petitioners over the lands in question, fully described in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The petitioners had also prayed that the respondents may be directed to supply the ordersheet of Rent Fixation Misc. Case No. 03 of 2003, where after the orders passed therein be also quashed.

3. This matter was heard earlier on different dates and in compliance of the order passed, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 5 by taking a plea that the lands in question was acquired way back in the year 1920 for construction of Patna Sewerage Construction Scheme, and subsequently it was transferred in the year 1975 to Beur Central Jail. It was also pleaded that in view of the claim of purchase made by the father of the petitioners in the year 1930, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners for cancellation of jamabandi and accordingly, by order dated 01.12.2004, jamabandi no. 2657 created in favour of the petitioners regarding the lands in question has been cancelled by the District Collector, Patna.

4. In above view of the matter, the petitioners have filed I.A.No. 1681 of 2005 seeking amendment of the writ petition and seeking permission to assail the validity and correctness of the order dated 26.11.2004 passed by the Additional Collector, Patna which was duly approved by the District Collector, Patna on 01.12.2004 canceling jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioners. A copy of the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2004 passed by the Additional Collector, Patna, which was approved by the District Collector, Patna, by order dated 01.12.2004, has been brought on the record as Annexure-15 to the aforesaid Interlocutory Application.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that by order dated 26.11.2004, the Additional Collector, Patna recommended for cancellation of jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question, but before passing aforesaid order, he has not given opportunity of hearing to these petitioners. It is further submitted by him that the District Collector, Patna, without application of his independent judicial mind to the facts of the case, has simply initialed the aforesaid order on 01.12.2004. According to him, the order impugned cannot be sustained in law, apart from the merits, on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice.

6. The learned AC to GP 9, appearing on behalf of the respondents has contested the matter and submitted that, in fact, show cause were issued to the petitioners by the Circle Officer as also D.C.L.R., therefore, the petitioners were aware about pendency of the proceeding. However, despite repeated queries, he has not been able to show that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners either by the Additional Collector, Patna or the District Collector, Patna before passing the impugned orders.

7. After having heard the parties and taking into consideration the materials available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision by the Additional Collector, Patna. Indisputably, by order dated 26.11.2004 the Additional Collector, Patna recommended for cancellation of jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question, but before passing that order, he has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This Court also finds that though on the basis of the recommendation made by the Additional Collector, Patna, the District Collector, Patna approved the same and cancelled the jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioners, but