CHANDGI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the orders dated October 21, 1975 and April 27, 1976 (Annexures P.1 and P. 2) passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector, respectively, under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) primarily on the ground that before the passing of the order P.1, no notice of any sort as envisaged by rule 20 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 was served upon them. Mr. Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate-General, who is present with the relevant original record, concedes on the basis of the same that though Chattar Singh and Partap Singh petitioners had been served personally, yet Chandgi Ram petitioner was not served in any manner.

(2.) In the light of the above noted factual position, the impugned orders being composite orders qua these petitioners, have essentially to be set aside even at the instance of Chandgi Ram alone. By now it is well laid down that no person can be condemned unheard. The impugned order Annexure P.1 thus could not be passed behind the back of Chandgi petitioner. As already pointed out, the impugned orders being composite, there is no option but to set aside the same as a whole.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition and set aside the impugned orders with no order as to costs.