BACHITTAR SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing order dated 16.12.1983 (Annexure P-2) vide which Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab allowed the petition filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE main ground on which the petitioners have challenged the impugned order is the they were not served with the notice of the petition filed by respondent No. 2. In paragraphs 3 to 6 of the writ petition, the petitioners have averred as under :

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In my opinion, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. In their petition, the petitioners have categorically averred that notice of the petition filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 2 of the Act had not been served upon them. Respondent No. 2 has tried to controvert the same by asserting that notice had been served upon the petitioners and at the time of hearing, one Mukhtiar Singh was present on their behalf. However, the record showing service of notice upon the petitioners has not been produced before the Court. During the course of hearing, I asked learned counsel for the respondents whether any evidence is available with them to show that notice of the petition filed by respondent No. 2 had been served upon the petitioners but they could not draw my attention to any such evidence. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that order Annexure P.2 was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the same is liable to be quashed only on that ground. For the reason mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed and order Annexure P.2 is quashed with the direction to Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab to decide the application of respondent No. 2 afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional Director concerned on 16.2.2004. Petition allowed.