MANORAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R. R. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3, Mr. R. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party No.6 and Mr. G. S. Misra, learned Standing Counsel. Undisputed facts are that the consolidation proceedings have been initiated in the village and objections were filed by Mr. Ram Kishore before the Consolidation Officer, who, in turn, allowed the said objection and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was assailed by the opposite party No.3 before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The appellate authority has rejected the appeal and thereafter, a revision was filed. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been arrayed as opposite party before the revisional authority. Records were summoned by means of the order dated 20.5.2009. In compliance of the order dated 20.5.2009 passed by this Court, learned Standing Counsel has produced the relevant records. On perusal of the record, it reflects that the petitioner has not been arrayed before the revisional authority as one of the opposite parties, though the chak of the petitioner has been disturbed. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. Besides, natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. It is even said that the principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in iota of cases has reiterated that a person who is put to any harm, he shall first be afforded adequate opportunity of showing cause. In D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries; (1993) 3 SCC 259 the Supreme Court while laying emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action held that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as under: - "The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive procedural potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive." In National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan; (1998) 7 SCC 66, it was observed by the Apex Court that a person is entitled to judicial review, if he is able to show that the decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he is informed the reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons. Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 31.10.2007 is set aside and the Revisional Authority is directed to decide the revision, latest by 30.9.2009, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons, whose chaks are being affected.