HARCHAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated February 1, 1999 and February 4, 1999, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P4 and P6 with this writ petition. The petitioner prays that these orders be set aside.

(2.) THE admitted position is that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. During the pendency of this application, the petitioner's prayer for maintenance of status quo was accepted vide order dated January 28, 1999. However, on February 1, 1999, the Collector vacated this order regarding maintenance of status quo, on the basis of a Report from the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. The petitioner was not given any notice of the Report or an opportunity to contest the matter. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner has dismissed the appeal.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the order regarding the maintenance of status quo was in operation. Even if Block Development and Panchayat Officer had made a Report against the petitioner, the Collector should have confronted the petitioner with that Report. This was necessary so as to enable the petitioner to put forth the factual position. It is an elementary rule of fairness that no order should be passed to the prejudice of any one without the grant of some opportunity. In the present case, none was granted to the petitioner.