EDNA KUNDER Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Government Advocate is directed to take notice for Respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) THIS petition deserves to be allowed on account of violation of principles of natural justice in not affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in a proceeding relating to substitution of the entries in the Record of Rights (RTC ). The 2nd petitioner purchased land from his vendor UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg under a Sale Deed dated 11-12-1992 and in the year 2004 executed a registered Settlement Deed in favour of the 1st petitioner, his wife. The 2nd respondent, Assistant commissioner, on the basis of a report filed by the Tahsildar, instituted proceeding and by order dated 16-09-2004 Annexure-"b", directed the deletion of the name of the petitioners from the RTC in respect of the said immovable property, which when questioned in a revision petition under section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 26-12-2005 Annexure-"a" rejected the revision. Hence, this Writ petition. The sole ground urged by the petitioners is that as the 2nd respondent, in the enquiry over the entries made in the RTC did not extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the order of the 2nd respondent as well as in revision of the 1st respondent are illegal and non est.

(3.) IT is said that if there is a power to decide and determine, to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially in implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. Natural justice is alternative name for common sense justice. Natural justice are not codified canons but the principles ingrained into the conscience of a man. Fair hearing is a postulate of decision making. It cannot be fair if appraising the affected and appraising the representations is absent. The philosophy behind natural justice is in one sense participatory justice, in the process of democratic rule of law. The cardinal rule of law is that decisions should not be reached behind the back of parties and that proceedings that affect the lives and property should not be continued in the absence of the parties. A civil right being adversely affected is a sine-quo-non for invoking the audi alterem partem rule. In this regard the observations of the Supreme Court, in the case of sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Another reported in air 1955 SC 425 and in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill reported in air 1978 SC 851, apply on all its fours to the facts of this case.