R.P. Shah vs Govt. of Gujarat

J.N. Bhatt, J.—In this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the

Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department u/s 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in a revision dated 8th January 1985, inter alia,

contending that the first authority before whom the matter was conducted passed the adverse order on 7.3.84 without giving an opportunity of

hearing. In short, the sole contention raised before this Court is that the impugned order of the DDO, Ahmedabad, recorded on 7.3.84, copy

whereof is produced at Annexure C, exercising powers u/s 66 of the Code, directed the petitioner to remove the construction within 30 days and

cancelling the non-agricultural permission and thereby converting the land bearing City Survey No.112/1 situated at village Makarba and to hand

over the possession in respect of 4380 sq. mtrs of land. The order of the DDO came to be confirmed in a revision u/s 211 of the Code in Revision

No.501/84 by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State Government, Ahmedabad on 8th January, 1985.

It is, successfully, noticed from the record that the first impugned order passed by the DDO which, ultimately, came to be confirmed in revision

is, unquestionably, without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. Thus, the principles of ""audi alterem partem"" which is

one of the important facets of hearing of judicial or quasi-judicial matter is not observed in the present case. With the result, prejudice has been

caused to the petitioner. The order passed by the DDO without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, wrongly, came to be confirmed in

revision. The revisional authority has not assigned any clear and cogent reason as to why the matter was not remanded despite the fact that there

was no hearing. It is in these circumstances and for the larger interest of justice, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside with

a direction to the concerned authority to decide and determine the claim of the petitioner afresh by passing a speaking order.

In the result, the impugned orders of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) confirming the order of the DDO which is vitiated

and violative of principles of natural justice are quashed and set aside. The concerned DDO, respondent No.3, will consider and decide the matter

after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent without any order as to

costs. Since the matter is very old, respondent no.3 authority is directed to accord priority in hearing the matter of the petitioner as expeditiously as

possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of writ from this Court.