HARI CHAND Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was allotted 89 standard acres and 12-3/4 Units of land in village Bansi, Tehsil Gohana, District Rohtak, as a displaced person, impugns the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 27th July, 1972 (Annexure B), and the proceedings subsequent thereto cancelling 3-12-3/4 standard acres out of the above allotted land on account of the fact that the same was excess allotment on the ground that before passing this order, he was not heard. The case of the respondent-authorities is that a registered notice had been sent to the petitioner at his village address, but the postal authorities reported back that he was living somewhere in Delhi. Subsequent thereto, somebody by the name of Hari Krishan Batra put in appearance before the Managing Director, claiming himself to be an attorney of the petitioner. This Mr. Batra made a statement before the Managing Officer to the effect that he was prepared to purchase the excess allotment, i.e. 3-12-3/4 standard acres, made in favour of the petitioner on the rates prescribed by the Government. Taking this statement of Mr. Batra as an admission of the above-noted excess allotment, the Managing Officer referred the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the permanent rights which had duly been granted in favour of the petitioner in the meantime. On the basis of the reference, the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed the impugned order.

(2.) For the narration of the facts, it is patent that no personal notice was served on the petitioner before the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner denies that Shri Batra was ever given the power of attorney or was authorised by him to put in appearance before the Rehabilitation Authority. The respondent-authorities while acting on the statement of Mr. Batra, asked for no authorisation in his favour by the petitioner and kept no record of the same. Thus, it is difficult to hold that Shri Hari Krishan Batra was either an attorney of the petitioner or was authorised in any manner to put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner befoee the respondnet authority. Thus, it is patent that the impugned order was passed against the petitioner without due opportunity being afforded to him before passing of the same, and for that reason alone, the same cannot be sustained.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order, Annexure 'B', and the proceedings subsequent thereto resulting in Annexure 'C' are quashed. I, however, pass no order as to costs.