Bhagtu vs The State of Punjab and Others

S.P. Goyal, J.—This judgment will dispose of five petitions Civil Writ Petitions No. 2665, 2666, 2667, 2668 and 2687 of 1973 as they involve common questions of law and fact.

The Governor of Punjab vide Memo No. 7841-JN(IV-6161/2199, dated August 21, 1961 framed a scheme for the disposal of inferior evacuee land by its allotment to eligible Harijans and Backward Classes. The Tehsil Advisory Committee, Hoshiarpur, allotted the land in dispute to the five Petitioners in the said writ petitions in the year, 1962 and they were put in possession of the land allotted to them some time in the year 1963. Their allotment was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner on May, 20, 1973 and it is this order which has been challenged in these petitions it is surprising that these petitions were admitted to hearing without any copy of the order produced with the petitions or even any date of the order mentioned therein. However, the learned Additional Advocate General has produced the original record today and from its perusal it is found that the Officer Incharge of the District Rehabilitation Department moved the Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of the allotment in favour of the Petitioners on two grounds namely, that the Tehsil Advisory Committee was not competent to order the allotment and that the allottees being not Ian Hess persons were not entitled to the allotment. This report was got verified and after discussing the matter with the District Rehabilitation Authority, the Deputy Commissioner who was only the competent authority under the Scheme to make any allotment, cancelled the said allotment of land to the Petitioners.

Before dealing with the matter on merits, it may be mentioned that the Petitioner in each case has produced in the Court replication by way of an affidavit. I am, however, not inclined to entertain it because a further affidavit can only be filed with prior permission of this Court. No application to that effect has been submitted according to the procedure. The affidavits are, therefore, returned to the Petitioners.

Although several grounds have been mentioned in the petitions to assail the impugned order but the only one pressed at the time of arguments was that the Petitioners were not heard before the allotment in their favour was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. This averment is not denied in the written statement and instead it is pleaded that they were not entitled to any hearing because the allotment in their favour had not been made by any competent authority. That maybe so but once the allotment had been made in their favour and they had been allowed to remain in possession for more than a decade, the principles of natural justice required that before the allotment was cancelled, the Petitioners should have been afforded an opportunity of being heard.

Mr. Mohinderjit Singh Sethi, learned Additional Advocate General, however, contended that the case of the petioners was considered by the District Rehabilitation Authority at the time of fresh allotment and they were found to be not eligible as they owned some land and were hot landless persons. From the perusal of the order of the Officer in Charge dated June 21, 1973, it is apparent that the Petitioners had filed applications not for taking part in the reallotment and instead they had requested him not to allot the said land to any body else as they were in its possession for the last ten years. The fact that their case was consideredy by the District Rehabilitation Authority and they were found to be ineligible at the time of reallotment of the land in dispute would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice because the Petitioners were to be heard by the Deputy Commissioner before the land allotted in their favour was cancelled. Once the order of cancellation was passed, the subsequent hearing for determination of the rights of the Petitioners by the District Rehabilitation Authority was meaningless and P. 4 cannot validate the impugned order which was passed at the back of the Petitioners. The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner dated May 20, 1973 is consequently quashed and the case is remanded for fresh decision after hearing the Petitioners. The Petitioners, through their counsel, have been directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, an January, 7, 1981. No costs.