Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 11828
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH, J
KHAGEN CHANDRA MEDHI AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. – Respondent
WP(C) / 4926 / 2021
Mr. J. C. Gaur, Advocate; Ms. M. Borah, Advocate; Mr. N. Goswami, Jr. Govt. Advocate; Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, Standing Counsel; Mr. D. Borah, Advocate
Procedural fairness is essential in adjudicative processes, requiring that objections are considered and rules are followed for valid ownership determinations.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 - Section 23 - Writ petition challenging the order granting ownership rights to Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 - Petitioners' objections not considered, and proceedings not compliant with the Assam Tenancy Rules - The court found that the Additional District Commissioner failed to adhere to procedural requirements, warranting a de novo adjudication. (Paras 2, 3, 8, 9)
(B) Procedural Fairness - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in adjudication, ensuring that parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioners challenged an order granting ownership rights to certain respondents, claiming their objections were ignored and procedural rules were not followed.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered a fresh adjudication of the ownership rights, allowing the Petitioners to submit their objections and ensuring due process is followed.
Issues: Whether the Petitioners' objections were considered, and whether the proceedings complied with the relevant rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that procedural fairness is essential in adjudicative processes, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper record-keeping.
Result: Writ petition disposed of, order dated 25.11.2019 set aside.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. J. C. Gaur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. N. Goswami, the learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. D. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4 to 8.
2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Respondent No.3 in Tenancy Case No.7/2019 whereby the Respondent No.4 to 8 who were the recorded Ryati were granted the ownership rights in terms of Section 23 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act , 1971 (for short ‘ the Act of 1971’).
3. The challenge made to the said order dated 25.11.2019 is primarily based on two grounds. First, the Petitioners herein had submitted an objection in the said proceedings. However, the said objection was not taken into account. The second ground which is taken is that there is no compliance to Rule 10 and 11 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Rules, 1972 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1972’) inasmuch as it is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent No.3 allowed the application filed under Section 23 of the Act of 1971 on the ground that there was no objection so filed by the Petitioners and without even making any attempt to record the memorandum of evidence.
4. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of that pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2019, the Petitioners had filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural) seeking a review of the order dated 25.11.2019 on the ground that the Petitioners had duly submitted an objection which was not taken into account. The said proceedings however was not further proceeded with taking into account the file wherein the order dated 25.11.2019 was passed being file No.KRL 7/2019 was missing. This aspect of the matter is clear from Annexure-E to the writ petition.
5. In the background of the above, this Court also finds it relevant to take note of the records which were produced by Mr. N. Goswami, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This Court had enquired with the learned counsel as to when the file being KRL 7/2019 could be traced out. The learned Standing counsel submits that there is no specific instruction as to when the file was traced out but in the affidavit so filed by the Respondent No.2 on 19.10.2022, it has been mentioned that the file was misplaced due to shifting of the office from the old building to the new building. The file subsequently was traced out.
6. This Court has also perused the said records of KRL 7/2019 which was produced. From a perusal of the said file, it is apparent that there is no such objection on record. A perusal of the records reveals that on 14.11.2019, the proceedings was initiated and a direction was issued to issue notice upon the Petitioners thereby fixing the matter on 20.11.2019. On 20.11.2019, an order was passed recording that though the Petitioners were represented by their respective counsels, but when the matter was taken up, nobody was present and accordingly the matter was fixed on 25.11.2019. On 25.11.2019, the Respondent No.3 had passed the impugned order on the basis that there was no objection filed and on that very date, the compensation was also adjudicated in terms of Section 24 of the Act of 1971 and the ownership rights in respect to the said land was also confirmed in favour of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8.
7. A perusal of the records therefore shows that within a span of fifteen days, the entire proceedings was finalized. It is also very pertinent to mention that while passing the order dated 25.11.2019, the Additional District Commissioner had not taken note of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1972 wherein there is a requirement of making a memorandum of evidence, if any
