The court reaffirmed that administrative decisions affecting rights must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring parties are given a fair opportunity to be heard.

ORDER :

Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the notice dated 24.01.2023 issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Taranagar, District Churu in pursuance of the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner in Appeal No.01/2022.

3. Briefly noted the facts in the matter are that the petitioner, being the resident of Taranagar, District Churu, applied for grant of Patta. In pursuance of his application, the respondent No.1 issued a lease deed (Patta) on 30.03.2013 for the land situated at Khasra No.1847/697 at Ward No.16, Taranagar, District Churu ad-measuring 823.33 sq.yds. After issuance of the lease deed (Patta) in his favour, the petitioner got the same registered and is presently residing in the dwelling house constructed on the land in question.

4. The petitioner received a notice dated 24.01.2023 from the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Taranagar, District Churu, wherein it was stated that in pursuance of the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner in Appeal No.01/2022, the lease deed (Patta) issued in favour of the petitioner on 30.01.2013 has been cancelled. It was also stated in the notice that if any construction has been undertaken within 75 ft. from the center point of the road, the same may be removed by the petitioner. Aggrieved of the notice dated 24.01.2023 issued in pursuance of the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was absolutely unaware of the fact of any appeal being filed against him before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. He submits that after receipt of the notice dated 24.01.2023, when the petitioner inquired about the factum of the appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, he obtained the copy of the same. Learned counsel further submits that the certified copies of the proceedings of appeal were also obtained and as per the order dated 04.10.2022, the notices were issued in the appeal preferred by the private respondent No.4 and the same were made returnable on 19.12.2022. He submits that although the notices were issued, but the same were never served upon the petitioner and the learned Divisional Commissioner, without waiting for service of notice of appeal, decided the appeal itself on 06.12.2022 before the date fixed for return of the notices. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the learned Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner had decided the appeal without following the due process of law, much less without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and thus, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. He submits that since the notice dated 24.01.2023 had been issued on the basis of the order dated 06.12.2022, therefore, the notice itself is de hors the law and is deemed to have been issued in gross violation of principles of natural justice. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 06.12.2023 as well as the notice dated 24.01.2023 may be quashed and set aside.

7. Mr. Virendra Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.4 on Caveat very fairly submits that the order dated 06.12.2023 reflects that the petitioner was not heard in the matter before deciding the appeal. He submits that the order dated 06.12.2022 has been passed giving only a direction to the Municipal Board, Taranagar to reconsider the facts with respect to issuance of Patta No.366 dated 30.03.2013 issued in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the rules as the same is falling within 75 ft. from the center of the road. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may