Ashok Kumar vs Jammu Development Authority and another

Javed Iqbal Wani, J

The issues involved in the instant writ petitions are akin and analogous to each other, as such, are taken up for final disposal with the consent of appearing counsel for the parties at this stage and shall stand disposed of hereunder.

The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition are that the petitioners herein claim to have applied to respondent 1-Jammu Development Authority (for short the JDA) for allotment of a strip of land situated at Trikuta Nagar, Housing Colony, Jammu pursuant to an application whereupon the petitioners’ came to be informed that a strip of land measuring 600 sq.ft labeled as strip b and strip c situated and available in Sector-3, Trikuta Nagar, Housing Colony Jammu on lease hold basis stands allowed, as a consequence whereof, a lease deed came to be executed by the petitioner’s herein with the respondent 1 herein against consideration of a payment of premium of Rs. 26,667/- and registered before the competent forum followed by the delivery of possession of said strip of land by the respondents herein to the petitioners herein and that besides the said strip of land and that both the petitioners in the instant petitions contemplated to join both the strips of land and to raise construction thereon, which construction, however, could not be raised for multiple reasons and that in the meantime, a dispute arose qua the strips of land with adjacent plot holder of Plot No. 173 and that after a considerable period of time, on 18.05.2017, the petitioners herein came to know about a notice published in the newspaper “Daily Excelsior” in its issue dated 18.05.2017 purportedly got published by the Secretary of the JDA on 17.05.2017 requiring the petitioners to attend the office of the JDA for receiving the amount of the premium along with interest deposited by them qua the strips of land owing to a decision arrived at by the Board of Directors of JDA in its 45th Meeting held on 24.02.1993 and that in response to the said publication/notice, the petitioners herein submitted the response thereto through their counsel on 26.05.2017 requiring the respondents to furnish them the documents/letters as also the agenda including the decision of the Board of Directors and that the respondents instead of responding to the request of the petitioners made in the legal notice served upon them, issued order No. JDA/JM/454-56 dated 08.07.2017 and order No. JDA/JM/451-53 dated 08.07.2017 through respondent 2 herein whereunder the allotment of the strips of the land in question came to be cancelled.

Aggrieved of the impugned orders, the petitioners herein have maintained the instant petitions on the multiple grounds.

Reply to the petitions has been filed by the respondents herein, wherein the petitions have been opposed on the premise that the petitions are hit by delay and laches and that the petitioners herein stand notified about the cancellation of the allotment of the strips of land in terms of notification published in the “Daily Excelsior” newspaper on 18.05.2017 requiring the petitioners to appear before the JDA within 15 days and on their failure to respond to the said notice, the order of cancellation came to be issued and that the petitioners have not challenged the decision of Board of Directors dated 24.02.1993 and that none of the rights of the petitioners much less fundamental, statutory or legal have been violated by the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Before adverting to the issue involved in the instant petitions it would be appropriate and advantageous to refer to the principle/doctrine of natural justice set out by the Apex Court in case titled as Dharampal Satyampal Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Central reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 wherein at paras 21, 24 and 28, following has been held:

“20. In Common Law, the concept and doctrine of natural justice, particularly which is made applicable in the decision making by judicial and quasi- judicial bodies, has assumed different connotation. It is developed with this fundamental in mind that those whose duty is to decide, must act judicially. They must deal with the question referred both without bias and they must given to each of the parties to adequately present the case made. It is perceived that the practice of aforesaid attributes in mind only would lead to doing justice. Since these attributes are treated as natural or fundamental, it is known as 'natural justice'. The principles of natural justice developed over a period of time and which is still in vogue and valid even today were: (i) rule against bias, i.e. nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa; and (ii) opportunity of being heard to the concerned party, i.e. audi alteram partem. These are known as principles of natural justice. To these principles a third principle is added, which is of recent origin. It is duty to give reasons in support of decision, namely, passing of a 'reasoned order'.

The principles have sound jurisprudential basis. Since the function of the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities is to secure justice with fairness, these principles provide great humanizing factor intended to invest law with fairness to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. The principles are extended even to those who have to take administrative decision and who are not necessarily discharging judicial or quasi-judicial functions. They are a kind of code of fair administrative procedure. In this context, procedure is not a matter of secondary importance as it is only by procedural fairness shown in the decision making that decision becomes acceptable. In its proper sense, thus, natural justice would mean the natural sense of what is right and wrong.

28 It is on the aforesaid jurisprudential premise that the fundamental principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, have developed. It is for this reason that the courts have consistently insisted that such procedural fairness has to be adhered to before a decision is made and infraction thereof has led to the quashing of decisions taken. In many statutes, provisions are made ensuring that a notice is given to a person against whom an order is likely to be passed before a decision is made, but there may be instances where though an authority is vested with the powers to pass such orders, which affect the liberty or property of an individual but the statute may not contain a provision for prior hearing. But what is important to be noted is that the applicability of principles of natural justice is not dependent upon any statutory provision. The principle has to be mandatorily applied irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any such statutory provision or not.”

Keeping in view the aforesaid position and principles of law and reverting back to the case in hand, the petitioners have specifically in the petitions averred that in response to the notice dated 17.05.2017 issued by respondents and published in the newspaper “Daily Excelsior” on 18.05.2017, served legal notice upon the respondents and requested for supply of documents detailed out therein in the legal notice/s dated 26.05.2017. The respondents in the objections, however, have specifically denied to have received any response thereto the aforesaid notice published in the newspaper by them including the said legal notices. However, perusal of the original record pertaining to the cases of the petitioners produced by the counsel for the respondents pursuant to the directions passed by this Court would reveal that the said legal notices stand received by the respondents and even stand marked by the officers of the JDA on 27.05.2017. The legal notice of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 222/2022 bears testimony to the said fact whereas the legal notice of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 223/2022 being a xerox copy of the said notice bears receipt No. 889 dated 26.05.2017.

In view of the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the respondents are found to have not only concealed and suppressed the fact of the receipt of the legal notices from the petitioners, but have also sworn false affidavits before this Court while supporting the objections filed to the petitions.

Since it is manifest that the respondents have failed to respond to the aforesaid legal notices of the petitioners and have without offering a hearing to the petitioners, cancelled the allotment of the respective strips of land allotted to them, in terms of the impugned orders, the said impugned orders in law thus, cannot legally sustain having been issued in blatant violation of the principle of natural justice.

Viewed thus, for what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the instant petitions succeed and are accordingly disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The impugned order No. JDA/JM/454-56 dated 08.07.2017 and order No. JDA/JM/451-53 dated 08.07.2017 are quashed.

(ii) The Registrar Judicial of this Court is directed to lodge a formal complaint in accordance with law against Kusum Chib, Collector Land Acquisition, (OIC Litigations, JDA) for having sworn false affidavit(s) in support of the objections filed in opposition to the instant petitions.

(iii) The respondents are also directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- each to the petitioners as costs of litigation.

(iv) The Registrar Judicial is directed to retain a xerox copy of the record produced by the counsel for the respondents for filing of the aforesaid complaint against the aforenamed official of the JDA and also place on record a copy thereof on each files, whereafter, the original record be returned to the counsel for the respondents.

(v) A copy of this order be also placed on the record of each petitions.