Entitlement to natural justice - Opportunity of hearing or notice before dispossession.

1. :- The land bearing khasra No. 206/4 measuring 6 bighas 5 biswas situated in village Mundiagarh was admittedly jagir land of Thikana Kalwar. On the presumption that Bhura s/o Lachhma recorded tenant of the said land had abandoned the land in question, this land was admittedly allotted to petitioners vide order dated 29.4.77 as per the law. It is stated by petitioner that after such possession having been given to them, the petitioners have even dug a well and fitted a pump and engine on the land and even have taken electric connection for the purpose of irrigation.

2. Later on the authorities, on the application having been moved by respondent No.4, had passed an order against the petitioners for handing over the possession back to respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 had taken up the plea that as per entries in revenue record, he was entitled to retain the land and the land had been wrongly shown as abandoned land and therefore, was not available for allotment to petitioners or to any one else. Without issuing any notice to petitioners the orders dated 27.5.86 (Ann.6) and 16.6.86 (Ann.8) are said to have been passed wherein the Dy. Secretary, Administration, had passed an order for taking back the possession of land in question and to hand over back to respondent No.4.

3. Even though the petitioners have alleged certain malafides, but there is hardly any necessity to go into any matter except that no notice whatsoever was issued to petitioners before passing the orders annexure 6 and 8. Counsel for respondent No.4 has not filed any written statement and therefore, the averments made in this respect by petitioners stand uncontroverted.

4. In reply to para No.19 of the writ petition, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 had filed written statement and have clearly stated that there was no necessity to comply with the principles of natural justice. No one is present on behalf of the State, nor any record has been produced.

5. The writ petition is to be allowed only on the sole ground that the allotment made to petitioners had been cancelled without any notice to them. Even though counsel for petitioner has stated that respondent No. 4 Bhura himself had put up an application before Allotment Committee of the Panchayat for obtaining certain land and had termed himself to be a landless person, in that situation, counsel for petitioner submits that so called entries in the name of Bhura seem to be fictitious. This matter cannot be taken up by this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as it involve determination of facts.

6. For the reason that the petitioners were entitled to an opportunity of hearing or a notice before the order of dispossession could be passed against them for cancelling the allotment made to them, the writ petition is to be allowed and the impugned orders annexure 6 and 8 are quashed. The authorities shall be at liberty to redetermine the status of respondent No.4 and the petitioners shall be at liberty to contest the claim made by respondent No.4. The respondents are directed to afresh decide the case of respondent No.4, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.The writ petition is allowed, as stated above. No order as to cost. Petition Allowed.

*******