M G KALEGOWDA Vs. COMMISSIONER CHICKMAGALUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 3(3) of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) rules, 1979. It is also ob served by the assistant commissioner that the petitioner herein refused to receive the notice according to [he revenue inspector. From the original records, it is seen that notice was ordered in the year 1982. Ac cording to the petitioner, his lather died in the year 1975. These are all facts which are not in dispute. If that be so, a dead person could not have refused the notice, nor could the notice been served on a dead person. The alternative available to the assistant commissioner was to implead legal repre sentative of the deceased and then issue a notice to him. In the order passed by the as sistant commissioner under annexurc-a, the name of the petitioner's father is shown as the respondent and the name of the petitioner is not shown. As stated earlier, the petitioner's father died in the year 1975. In the circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the deceased continued to be on record as the respondent and that the legal repre sentative of the deceased was not brought on record. It goes without saying that the legal representative is an interested person and has a right to be heard. Neither the legal representative has been notified, nor heard by the assistant commissioner and, there fore, the grievance of the petitioner seems to be justifiable. Either on account of oversight on the part of the deputy commissioner or on account of non-submission of the appel lant before him, these vital aspects have not been brought to his notice and the result is that the order of the deputy commissioner confirmed the order of the assistant commissioner. The procedure adopted by the assistant commissioner is unknown to law. The procedure is not only unnatural, but also violative of natural justice. No man can be deprived of his property unless he is heard. The days of "give the dog a name and hang it" belong to the bygone age. These quasi judicial authorities cannot afford to sit in an ivory tower in disregard of procedural and legal compulsions. There is failure of justice.

(2.) IN the light of the above discussion,both the orders of the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner are li able to be quashed and, therefore, i quash the same. The writ petition is allowed. The case is remitted back to the assistant com missioner with a direction to him to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and the other concerned parties, hold fresh enquiry by af fordINg a reasonable opportunity of hearINg to all the parties and pass orders on merits IN accordance with law withIN a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of this order shall be forthwith communicated to the assistant commissioner.writ petition allowed.