AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 262 wordsPrashant Kumar Mishra, J
Petitioner would contend that while setting aside the order cancelling the lease issued in his favour on the ground of alleged violation of the terms of
the lease, the Collector, Raigarh has not issued any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing in any other form has been afforded to him.
A plain reading of the cause title and the contents of the order would indicate that the proceeding was initiated by the Collector, Raigarh against
Kushal Singh, Hulesh Singh, Sahodra Bai and Lekhni Bai and not against the petitioner Balbhadra Singh. Even though in operative part of the order,
the lease granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled and the land has been directed to be vested in the State.
It is trite law that no order having civil consequences can be passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the affected party. (See : State of
Punjab & Ors. v. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 4072)).
In view of the apparent violation of principle of natural justice, instead of keeping this petition pending, I deem it appropriate to quash the impugned
order at this stage and remit the matter back to the Collector, Raigarh for passing fresh orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Let the Collector, Raigarh issue notice to the petitioner within a period of 1 month from today and thereafter complete the proceedings within next 6
months.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.