PATEL DEVABHAI BHAWANBHAI Vs. HARIJAN MERABHAI SAVABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the orders and also from the statements, it does not appear that the parties were permitted to cross-examine each other and any proper Rojkam in the matter was maintained. Even from the order of the appellate authority, it does not appear that the parties were given opportunity to cross-examine each other or that their statements were recorded in presence of each other or that proper Rojkam was maintained in the present matter. Now, so far as the appellate order is concerned, it must refer the reasons for rejecting the contentions of the parties. The proceedings before the Debt Settlement Officer, in my opinion, were contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Debt Settlement Officer has not followed the procedure of summary inquiry properly, as laid down by Sections 195 and 196 of the Land Revenue Code, while acting under Section 8 of the said Code.