G LINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY the order passed in favour of the writ petitioner by the Tahlildar, which was affirmed on appeal by the Assistant Collector, and further confirmed in revision by the District Collector, was reversed by the Government in their Memorandum No. D-2-5659/62-63 Revenue, dated6th April, 1963 without giving notice to the writ petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to make his representation. The Tahsildar had assigned S. No. 154/1, (Government dry) of an extent of acre 0.90 cents to the writ petitioner and patta was granted to him in form "D" on the ground that he satisfied the description of landless poor person Respondents 5 gnd 6, who felt aggrieved by that order, preferred an appeal to the Assistant Collector, Penukonda, who by an order dated 21st May, 1962, confirmed the order of assignment made by the Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal. It was contended before the Assistant Collector that the writ petitioner owns a bus and a house, and SO could not be regarded as a landless poor person, to be entitled to assignment of Government land under Dharkast Rules. The Assistant Collector pointed out tha the Tahsildar had taken note of those facts and found that the average monthly income of the petitioner through his bus was only Rs 100 and that the respondent had only one house in which he was living. The revision filed before the Collector was also dismissed by him on 22nd October 1962. Thereafter respondents 5 and 6 preferred a revision to the Government and the Government, without giving notice to the petitioner, disposed of the revision, making the following observations: "The Government have examined the revision petition of Sarvasri Gandla Akkulappa and-Gandla Thippanna first cited. They consider that the definition of "landless poor" implies that one should be landless and at the same time poor also, that as Sri Lingappa is the owner of a bust cannot be deemed to be a poor person and hence the assignment made to him is not justified. They therefore direct that, the assignment made to him be cancelled and should be leased out in respect of the extent of 0.90 cents in S. No 154-1 (dry) in Kothapalli village of Penukonda taluk to the revision petitioners 'Eksal basis' Thus the very ground which was considered and found both by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Collector not to stand in the way of the assignment being made to the petitioner, was relied on by the Government to reverse their orders.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that this order Was passed by the Government without giving him a chance to state his case and satisfy the Government that although he owns a bus he nevertheless satisfied the definition of "landless poor". In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government it is pointed out (hat according to Board Standing order Para 15-18 issue of a notice to the petitioner while disposing of the revision petition is not mandatory. Whatever the Board's Standing Order might say, in a matter like this, where an assignment made in favour of a party is sought to be set aside, it is fair that the Government gives notice,to the party and considers his representation before reversing an order made in his favour. THE question is not so much whether an authority acts quasi-judicially or administratively, in whatever capacity it acts, where the rignts of a party are affected, there is a duty to act fairly. A duty to act fairly implied a duty to give notice and give a hearing where rights created in a pariv by reason of orders passed by competent authoties, are sought to be dis urbed. That is a stlutary principle which should apply to all authorities judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative. On the sologround that in passing the impugned order the Government have fallen into an error in not giving notice to the writ petitioner, the order of the Government to dispose of the revision petition filed by respondents 5 and 6 after giving due notice to the writ petitioner. THE writ petition is allowed to this extent, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.