NARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of Special Collector dated September 12, 1962, declaring surplus area of Om Parkash.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that Om Parkash was a big landowner and owned land in several villages including village Bint. He sold land measuring 194 Kanals and 13 Marlas in village Bint for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/- in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated June 14, 1958. It is stated that the Special Collector passed an order on September 12, 1972, declaring surplus area of Om Parkash without issuing any notice to the petitioner who had purchased some of his area. He has prayed for quashing of the said orders stated above. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents inter alia on the ground that the Financial Commissioner has remanded the case to the Special Collector and the petitioner can appear before him and make his representation.

(3.) The only question that arises for determination in the present case is as to whether the petitioner was necessary party to the proceedings for declaration of surplus area of Om Parkash. It is not disputed by the respondents that land measuring 194 Kanals and 13 Marlas was sold to the petitioner by Om Parkash vide registered sale deed dated June 14, 1958 for an amount of Rs. 11,000/-. If he had purchased some land then under Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, it was incumbent upon the Special Collector to hear the petitioner before declaration of surplus area of Om Parkash. This, however, has not been done. It is an established principle of law that if an order adverse to a party has been passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard, then the order is illegal and liable to be set aside. In the circumstances, in my view, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.