JITA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india are these. During the course of proceedings held in village Gandhar in Tehsil muktsar. District Ferozepur for consolidation of land holdings, the petitioners felt dissatisfied with the allotment made to them by the Consolidation Officer and agitated the matter before the Settlement Officer in an appeal which was decided on the 27th of July, 1966, through an order (Annexure "c" to the petition and hereinafter referred to as Annexure "c") which held-

(2.) THIS petition must succeed on the short ground that no real opportunity of being heard was given by the Additional Director to the petitioners. It is claimed by the petitioners that they brought to the notice of the Additional Director the order passed by the Settlement Officer on the 29th of November, 1967, and contained in annexure "e" to the petition but that the Additional Director returned the same to them without perusing it. Now it was clearly the right of the petitioners that before the Additional Director passed any order to their prejudice, he took into consideration the decisions already given in their favour by officers subordinate to him and also the reasons for those decisions. On two occasions the petitioners had been successful before the Settlement Officer, orders passed by whom should not have been just ignored by the Additional Director whose duty it was to give due deliberation to the reasoning contained therein and then to pass a speaking order affirming or reversing them. The order which he actually passed, however, not only gives no reasons why those orders were not being uphold but makes no mention thereof even though they were the best defence which the petitioners could make. The Additional Director was discharging a quasi-judicial function while hearing the petition under Section 42 of the Act and he was well advised in refusing to take into consideration the grounds of the two orders passed by the settlement Officer and to give his own comments thereon before he differed with them. In any other view of the matter is taken, the provisions governing the right of appeal given to aggrieved persons under various provisions of the Act would be rendered practically ineffective if not redundant.

(3.) FOR the reasons stated I find that the impugned order contravenes the principles of natural justice and is also not a speaking order in so far as it goes against and ignores the two decisions taken by the Settlement Officer. It is accordingly quashed with a direction to the Additional Director to rehear the petition under section 42 of the Act in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before him on the 15th of september, 1971. There will be no order as to costs.