PATMESHWARI Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER DEVI PATAN MANDAL GONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. S. Misra, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. R. N. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted the lease of the land Gata No. 2003M/0.227 hectare situated in Village Ashokpur, Pargana. Since then, the petitioner is using the land for agricultural purpose. According to the petitioner, as the Pradhan of last regime was inimical to him, due to partibandi in the village, cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not residing in the village. Petitioner's counsel further contended that upon the said resolution, Halka Lekhpal having nexus with the Gram Pradhan sent the report before the Naib-Tahsildar, who forwarded the same before the Additional Collector, Gonda and without issuing the show-cause notice, proceedings were initiated and the order of cancellation has been passed by the Additional Collector, by means of the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the revision and the revisional authority while dismissing the revision upheld the order passed by the Additional Collector. Counsel for the petitioner submits that without affording opportunity of hearing, the proceedings were initiated. Further, due to inimical terms with the Gram Pradhan, the Pradhan passed the resolution for cancellation of lease deed on the ground that the petitioner is not residing in the village. 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. As the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order of cancellation of land in question, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Keeping the above aspects in mind, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 27.12.2004 and 16.3.2009 passed by the opposite parties 2 and 1 respectively are hereby quashed.