Failure to provide an opportunity to a necessary party in a proceeding constitutes a violation of natural justice.

JUDGEMENT

This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the orders at Annexures "E" and "H" to the petition.

2.The land of survey no. 201 of village Varvada, Ta: Dahod, Dist: Panchmahals admeasuring H 1-34.56 acres equivalent to 3 Acres and 13 gunthas was running in the name of the petitioner and his deceased brother Vasna Guliyabhai. After the death of the petitioner's brotehr, the name of his widow Bai Mani, respondent no. 4 and Bai Vesti, daughter of deeased Vasnabhai (respondent no. 5) were entered in the village record. The respondent no. 5 married and lived in village Gadoi of Dahod taluka of Panchmahals district.

The said land was cultiated only by the petitioner. His name was shown in the village record 7/12 forms for the last many years. An application dated 6.8.1982 was moved to the Mamlatdar by the respsondent no. 3 stating therein that he had purchased the land admeasuring 2 acres out of the land of survey no. 201 from respondent nos. 4 and 5. He was in possession thereof as the purchaser of the land by a registered sale deed dated 5.2.1981. Proceedings were initiated before respondent no. 2 on the basis of this application and notices were issued on 9.1.1984. Though the name of the petitioner was in the village record form nos. 7 and 12, no notice was issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of the proceedings before respondent no. 2 and hence he could not participate. The respondent no. 2 passed the order dated 21st January, 1984 wherein the names of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were directed to be deleted and the name of respondent no. 3 was directed to be entered in the land record. The petitioner preferred an appeal being appeal no. 18 of 1985 before the Collector, Panchmahals district who allowed the appeal and held that though permission had not been granted and the application for the purpose of sale was rejected, it was placed before respondent no.

3. In the application, it was mentioned that a registered sale deed was executed and sale has taken place between two Adivasis by a Kachha agreement prior to 1.2.1981 in which the order at Annexure "E" was passed by the respondent no. 2. Against the order passed by the Collector, a Revision Application was preferred by the respondent no. 2 before Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat. The present petitioner was not made a party to the said proceedings before Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department. In the Revision Application, the petitioner moved an application before Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) for impleading as a party in the Revision. Still however, the petitioner was not heard and the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department. The Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department has dismissed the Revision Application by his order dated 16.2.1990 and the order of the Collector has been set aside as per the operative portion of the judgment. One Review application was also filed before the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department and that Review application has also been dismissed. Hence the petitioner has filed the present petition.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not made a party either before Deputy Collector or in the appeal filed before the Collector. The Collector allowed the appeal against which Revis