GEETA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of 8 petitions, Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1226 to 1233 of 1983, which are directed against the common order of the Administrator, Annexure P-5 and of the Government, Annexure P-9.

(2.) Hari Chand, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was the owner of the land measuring 19 kanals 2 marlas which was included in the development scheme known as ''55 acre development scheme'' by the Jullundur Improvement Trust. The scheme was sanctioned and notified under Section 42 of the Town Improvement Act (for short, called the Act by the Government on July 10, 1975 whereas Hari Chand died on September 16, 1975. A dispute arose between the heirs of Hari Chand deceased and the Trust respecting allotment of plots to them being the local displaced persons. The matter came up before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3376 of 1979 wherein order cancelling allotment in their favour was quashed and the case was sent back with the direction, ''petitioners shall appear before the Chairman of the Trust on November 19, 1979 and thereafter the Chairman or any other person whom the power is delegated by the Chairman would decide the matter afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners''. The Chairman in due course after hearing the parties restored the allotment of the plots vide order Annexure P-4-A, dated August 7, 1980. Before the possession of the plots could be given to the petitioners, the Chairman and Members of the Improvement Trust were removed and Administrator appointed. The Administrator being of the view that the heirs of Hari Chand were entitled only to one plot, referred the matter to the Government who in turn approved his view and wrote back letter, Annexure P-9. It was mentioned in the said letter that Hari Chand alone was the local displaced person and hence all his heirs were entitled to the allotment of only one plot. The said orders of the Administrator and the Government have been challenged by the heirs of Hari Chand deceased by way of above noted petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) Though the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on merits as well but I do not propose to go into the same as the said orders have to be set aside on the sole ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The Chairman, as noticed above, passed the orders in favour of the petitioners under the Jullundur Improvement of Land Disposal Rules, 1954, the order of the Chairman was subject to confirmation by the Trust. Admittedly, the Administrator did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while modifying the order of the Chairman nor any hearing was given by the Government while approving his action. As stated in the petition, a large number of heirs of deceased landowners were given separate plots. So the learned counsel contended that the petitioners might have also been able to persuade the Administrator to treat them similarly and approve the action of the Chairman of the Trust. In any case, before the decision of the Chairman rendered in favour of the petitioners was disapproved or modified by the Administrator, the principle of natural justice required that they should have been given an opportunity of being heard. Though the learned counsel for the Trust contended that as the petitioners had been given a hearing by the Chairman, no second hearing was required to be afforded by the Administrator but he could not cite any decision in support of his contention. Even though the Administrator was the confirming authority yet if he was to pass any order against the recommendation of the Chairman which was in favour of the petitioners, he ought to have allowed a hearing to them to put their point of view before him.