Orders affecting property rights must be passed after affording the affected party a reasonable opportunity to show cause, failing which the orders may be invalidated for violation of natural justice.

GOSWAMI, C. J.: The petitioner purchased on 28th February. 1966 a piece of Ri-Kynti land of Mrs. Jovee Dienadoh measuring 17,720 square feet at Nongthv-mai. Shillong for Rs. 20.000/- with the approval of the District Council. United. Khashi-Jaintia Hills on 25th November. 1965 and on the recommendation of the Syien of Myllien. He obtained a patta from Mrs. Diengdoh on the same date. After the purchase of the land, the peti­tioner applied on 16th May. 1966 to the Shillong Municipal Board for permission to construct a building according to a plan submitted with his application. As re­quired by the Board, a revised plan was also submitted on 15th June, 1966 for approval. The Board, however, rejected the application by the order of the Chair­man of the Board on 7th of July 1966. The petitioner preferred an appeal against that order to the Board under Sec. 321(1) of the Assam Municipal Act. hereinafter called 'the Act', on 3rd August. 1966. After hearing the petitioner on 16th December, 1966, the Appellate Committee decided to accord permission to the peti­tioner to construct the building according to the plan, and the previous order of the Chairman was reversed. The Board's order dated 27th December. 1966. under Section 171 of the Act is marked as Annexure III to the petition.

After securing the above permission. the petitioner made preparations for con­struction of the building and actually laid foundation of the building on the land. Sometime, on 15th of May 1967. after about four months of the permis­sion, the petitioner received an order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29th April, 1967 directing him not to proceed with any construction work on the site until further orders. (Annexure IV). Thereafter, it is averred, without hearing the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner suspended the permission of the Board by an order dated 26th July. 1967. The peti­tioner appealed to the State Government on 15th October. 1967 against the order. The State Government by its order dated 25th February. 1968 confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner and direct­ed that the suspension order will continue in force without modification.

2. The above orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the State Govern­ment are impugned by the present application under Article 226 of the Constitu­tion and the petitioner obtained Rule Nisi on 20th September. 1968.

3. Although in his application the petitioner challenged the vires of Section 296 of the Assam Municipal Act. 1956 under which the authorities passed the impugned order and also issued notice to the Advocate-General. Assam, who has entered appearance before us. this objection has been given up during the course of the hearing by Mr. Mahanta. the learn­ed counsel for the petitioner.

4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed without afford­ing any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. We find that the petitioner obtained due permission from the Muni­cipal Board for constructing the premises on his land. As it appears from a state­ment of reasons given by the Deputy Commissioner, he did not take action under Section 296 of the Act suo motu. but only on an application dated 10th April. 1967 submitted by the Headman of Laituakhrah and others objecting to the permission given by the Board. The orders stopping the construction of the building and suspending the permission of the Board cannot but affect the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. Such orders prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner can only be passed by a statutory body after giving 'him reason­able opportunity to show cause against such orders. We find that no such rea­sonable opportunity was given to the petitioner, nor was a copv of the applica­tion containing grounds of objections to construction of the premises was furnish­ed to him. The petitioner, therefore, was not at all aware of what the objections were to the proposed construction and there was even no scope for abate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document