PANKAMAJHI DHOLIA Vs. DURI MAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petitioner at the instance of the opposite party No. 1 under Regulation 2 of 1956 against the petitioner in respect of the land purported to have been purchased by him from Nira Baliarsingh having been allowed and the possession of the land having been directed to be restored to the opposite party No. 1, the petitioner has approached this Court after having been unsuccessful also in appeal against the original order. The proceeding was initiated on the report of the Revenue Inspector reporting that the disputed land belonged to the husband of the opposite party No. 1 but was being illegally possessed by the petitioner. The case was called on 11 -5 -1976 when both parties appeared before the Tahasildar and the Special Officer. While it was the case of the opposite party No. 1 that the land beloged to her and she had given the land on mortgage to the petitioner, it was the petitioner's case that he had purchased the land from Nira Baliarsingh through registered sale deed. Both parties undertook on that day to produce their witnessess on 18 -5 -1976. On that day though the opposite party No. 1 was absent, the petitioner was present with his witness as also with the sale deed. One witness, the ex -Ward Member and an identifying witness to the sale deed was examined. A spot enquiry was held by the Tahisildar on 23 -2 -1979 and he passed orders on 21 -11 -1979 restoring possession of the land to the opposite party No. 1. A perusal of the order shows the Tahasildar to have taken into account the fact that the petitioner could not. produce any witness and could not explain as to how Nira Baliarsingh obtained title to the land. On the other hand, the villagers present, obviously at the spot enquiry held by him, had stated that the land was mortgaged by the husband of the opposite party No. 1 with Nira Baliarsingh two to three years before his death and that he had died about fifteen years back.

(2.) IT is aoparent that the Tahasildar was not correct in stating that the petitioner had not examined any witness since admittedly he had produced one witness on 18 -5 -1976 though of course his statement was a confused one since while he stated of being a witness to identify Nira Baliarsingh and the petitioner when the land was. sold by the former to the latter, yet again stated that the opposite party No 1 had sold the land to Nira Baliarsingh and that he did not know when Nira Baliarsrngh sold the land to the petitioner, Apart from such fact the order of the Tahasiidar shows him to have heavily relied upon the statements made before him during the spot visit by the villagers present to conclude that the land had belonged to the husband of the opposite party No. 1 and that he had mortgaged the land with Nira Baliarsingh two to three years before his death. The order sheet does not show his report of the spot visit to have been confronted to the petitioner or he having been granted opportunity to rebut the same. The spot enquiry report though referred to the statements of certain persons yet the record does not show such witnesses to have been confronted to the petitioner and him to have been afforded opportunity to cross -examine them, Section 3(2) of the Regulation 2 of 1956 requires the competent authority to decide the question of illegal transfer after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. An opportunity of being heard in the context would mean a reasonable opportunity of being heard and would postulate that materials collected or purported to be utilised in the proceeding are brought to the notice of either of the parties and they be afforded sufficient opportunity to meet the same. The enquiry as contemplated Under Section 3(2) is without doubt a quasi judicial one. A quasi -judicial enquiry, presupposes an approach which satisfies the rudiments of a judicial determination which consists of making the person against whom the proceeding is being curled out aware of the allegations against him, giving him the particulars of factors which appear against him and which are to be utilised against him and a reasonable Opportunity to him to rebut such factors. Apparently such procedure has not been adopted and the statements made by the villagers without being tested by cross - examinations, have been utilised to reach a conclusion adverse to the petitioner. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that reasonable opportunity had not been afforded to the petitioner to meet the case against him.