RAM PHAL Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where we find that sufficient opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner when order was passed on July 12, 1990 by the Director, Consolidation whereby he allowed a path to the private respondent from the land of the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The allegations of the petitioner was that he appeared before the Director in response to the notice on July 12, 1990 and requested for opportunity to engage counsel. This assertion has been denied by respondent No. 2 Dharam Singh who had in paras 3 of the reply taken up the stand that counsel for both the parties were present, and argued the case and the impugned order was passed which is Annexure P-1. Records of the case were sent for. The same has been produced by Shri Sushil Kumar, Clerk of the office of Director, Consolidation. Perusal of the same shows that notice was issued to Ram Phal, present petitioner, for July 12, 1990 which was served on him. This exists at page 33 of the record. The order on the proceedings of the aforesaid date shows that the case was taken up in the presence of Dharam Singh and Ram Phal. The stand taken up by the respondent Dharam Singh in the reply is not justified from the records that counsel for the parties had put in appearance, and had addressed arguments Rather para 2 of the impugned order also shows that the Director had simply recorded the presence of the parties.

(2.) The stand of the petitioner in the writ petition appears to be correct that on the first date of hearing fixed by the Director, he had appeared and requested for adjournment approached before the quasi-judicial authority, it is expected that reasonable opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the parties to meet the case. When service was effected on July 6, 1990 and the case was to be taken up on July 12, 1990, it could not be said that there was sufficient opportunity for the parties to prepare the case and that too before the authority whose order is going to be final under the provisions of the Act. We find that principles of natural justice, have been violated in this case and the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P. I is quashed with the direction to Director, Consolidation of Holdings-respondent No. 1 to decide the case afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and also affording opportunity of engaging counsel if they so desire. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Director, Consolidation on 24.2.1992. The records are returned. There will be no order as to costs.