1983 Supreme(P&H) 566

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Kang, J.
Chanan Mal Newar
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1980,
Decided On : DECEMBER 22, 1983

A transferee of a transferee from the original landowner is entitled to a notice during the determination of the surplus area case of such original landowner and the rules of natural justice are enshrined in rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules.

Headnote:

PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT - SURPLUS LAND DETERMINATION - NOTICE TO TRANSFEREES - REVIEW OF ORDERS - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - LOCUS STANDI - LIMITATION: 1. A transferee of a transferee from the original landowner is entitled to a notice during the determination of the surplus area case of such original landowner. 2. The rules of natural justice are enshrined in rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules. It requires that opportunity of hearing be afforded to any person who is likely to be prejudicially affected by an order which might be passed in the proceedings for determination of surplus area. 3. The view of the learned Financial Commissioner that the transferee of a transferee from the original landowner are not entitled to a notice, cannot be sustained either on principles or on precedent. 4. A Tribunal which has passed orders prejudicial to the interest of a citizen is not precluded form re-hearing the case on the application of such an affected person. This power of review inheres in every Court or Tribunal to prevent miscarriage of justice or to rectify grave and palpable errors committed by it. 5. The application moved by the petitioners for a review of the order was not though so captioned, really under section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. It was a prayer for recalling an illegal order and requesting the learned Financial Commissioner to re-hear the whole matter and to correct the grave and palpable errors committed by it. No period of limitation is prescribed for such an application.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Chanan Mal and three others, filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, upholding the orders of the Collector declaring certain land as surplus. The petitioners were the transferees of the land from the original landowner, Smt. Rukmani Devi. They contended that they were not given any notice of the proceedings for determination of surplus area and that the orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioners were entitled to a notice of the proceedings for determination of surplus area and that the orders passed without giving them a hearing were in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the petitioners had locus standi to seek a review of the orders and that their application for review was not barred by limitation.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a notice of the proceedings for determination of surplus area? 2. Whether the orders passed without giving the petitioners a hearing were in violation of the principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the petitioners had locus standi to seek a review of the orders? 4. Whether the petitioners' application for review was barred by limitation?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to a notice of the proceedings for determination of surplus area because they were transferees of the land from the original landowner and were recorded as owners of the land in the revenue record. The court relied on the provisions of rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, which requires that opportunity of hearing be afforded to any person who is likely to be prejudicially affected by an order which might be passed in the proceedings for determination of surplus area. 2. The court held that the orders passed without giving the petitioners a hearing were in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court observed that the rules of natural justice are enshrined in rule 6 of the Rules and that any person who is recorded in the revenue record as an owner or a tenant of the land, in dispute, is entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the Collector who passes orders declaring certain land as surplus. 3. The court held that the petitioners had locus standi to seek a review of the orders because they were affected by the orders and had a right to challenge them. The court observed that a person can intentionally not implead a proper or necessary party to the proceedings and obtain an order detrimental to the interest of such other person. That other person shall then be left without any remedy in law. Civil rights of a citizen cannot be taken away without hearing him. 4. The court held that the petitioners' application for review was not barred by limitation because no period of limitation is prescribed for such an application. The court also observed that the petitioners were not a party to the proceedings culminating in the order and that this order was not communicated to them.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the Collector, the Financial Commissioner, and the Financial Commissioner. The court remanded the case to the Collector to decide it afresh after hearing the petitioners and other persons interested in accordance with law.