The principles of natural justice require the Central Government to hear the objections and/or the alternative suggestions of the respondent before deciding which portion of the property to take.

R.S.NARULA, J.

1. Bungalow on plot No. 63, the Mall, Jullundur Cantt. along with the rights in the grant of the plot, was purchased by one Hukam Chand in a Court auction on 14-2-1953. The respondent purchased the same from Hukam Chand for Rs. 15,000.00 by sale-deed, dated September 6, 1960 (Annexure C to the writ petition). Another Rs. 15,000.00 are alleged to have been spent by her on installing a tube-well in a part of that property. With the permission of the Cantonment Board, dated May 7, 1966, the respondent made some construction and alterations in the building which were completed in 1968, at an alleged cost of Rupees 1,50,000.00 . Notice, dated January 20, 1972 (Annexure A to the petition), was issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence to the respondent wherein it was stated that out of the land measuring 3.07 acres comprised in the site of bungalow No. 63 belonging to the President of India (and held by the respondent on old grant terms under the Governor General s Order No. 179, dated September 12, 1836), a portion thereof measuring 1.499 acres had been decided to be resumed by the Government (which area had been shown in the plan Annexure B attached to the notice Annexure A ); and the respondent should quit and deliver possession of the said piece of land with structures standing thereon to the Military Estates Officer, Jullundur Cantonment, on the expiry of one month from the date of service of the notice whereafter the respondent s occupation and any rights, easements and interest of hers would cease from that date. It was further stated in the notice that the Government was prepared to pay to the respondent, and offered to pay her a sum of Rs. 1,966/- only as the value of the authorised erections standing on the plot of the land which was sought to be resumed. A cheque for that amount was stated to have been attached with the notice. The said notice was sought to be quashed by a writ in the nature of Certiorari in Civil Writ 566 of 1972, dated February 16, 1972, filed by the respondent. The Central Government was sought to be prohibited from taking any part of the land of the respondent out of the plot in dispute. The writ petition was resisted by the Union of India as well as by the Military Estates Office, Jullundur Cantonment, but was allowed by the order of Dhillon, J., dated October 23, 1973, on the solitary ground that the order for resuming part of the land granted to the respondent could not have been lawfqlly passed without affording the respondent an opportunity to show cause why the particular part of the land should not be resumed. The learned Judge observed that it was the admitted case of both sides that the entire land under bungalow No. 63 was not being resumed, but the respondent was sought to be deprived of only a portion thereof, and that though there is no doubt that it is open to the Government to resume the whole of the land forming the subject-matter of the grant by giving one month s notice and by paying the value of the buildings erected thereupon, position would be different if a portion of the land is being resumed which might affect the amenities available to the grantee thereby affecting her civil rights. Such a thing, it was held, cannot be done without affording an opportunity of being heard to the grantee. The reason for so holding ascribed by the learned Judge is that if the grantee is given notice, it would be open to her to convince the competent authorities that if they need an area of only 1.499 acres of land, their purpose may be equally served by taking some portion of the premises of the bungalow other than the one proposed to be taken so that the respondent can also continue to enjoy the amenities attached to the house, and the Government can also have the quantum of land required by it. It was in this situation that the civil rights of the respondent were held to have been adversely affected by the impugned order without affording her an opportu