BHANWAR LAL Vs. COLLECTOR JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the Panchayat Samiti, Osian, proceeded to cancel the lease of a plot of land given in his favour by the Gram Panchayat, Osian, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of heating The facts which have given rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated.

(2.) THE Gram Panchayat, Osian granted a lease of a plot of land situated near Gandhi Park in village Osian to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/ -by its resolution dated April 4, 1976. The petitioner thereafter set up a temporary structure and started selling eatables at the aforesaid place The Panchayat Samiti, Osian by its order dated May 12, 1976 set aside the resolution of the Gram Panchayat granting the lease of the aforesaid plot of lend in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon submitted a revision petition under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Collector, Jodhpur, complaining that the petitioner was not at all heard by the Panchayat Samiti in the matter and that without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the Panchayayt Samiti should not have cancelled the lease granted in his favour by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner's further contention was that the Panchayat Samiti had no jurisdiction in the matter and it could not have set aside the aforesaid resolution passed by the Gram panchayat on April 4, 1976. The Collector by his order dated August 16, 1976, held that the Panchayat Samiti possessed supervisory jurisdiction in such matters and it was authorised to cancel the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, Osian under its supervisory powers contained in Section 70A of the Act. The Collector further held that the Panchayat Samiti by its earlier order dated March 9, 1973 had declared that the land in question be left open for public me and that the Gram Panchayat was not justified in granting a lease to the petitioner in respect of the said land, which was recently got (sic) other persons in public interest However, regarding the question of affording a hearing to the petitioner, the Collector held (hat the petitioner, if he was interested, should have by himself appeared before the Panchayat Samiti and should have placed his point of view before the Panchayat Samiti. The present writ petition has been filed against the aforesaid order passed by the Collector, Jodhpur, dated August 16. 1976.

(3.) IN respect of the other submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Panchayat Samiti should not have proceeded to cancel the lease granted by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner, without affording him an opportunity of hearing in the matter, there can be no doubt that such an opportunity of hearing should have been given by the Panchayat Samiti. It is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice that the order passed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner, by which a lease of the land in question was granted to him should not have been set aside by the Panchayat Samiti without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner had a tight to have his say in the matter and to present his side of picture before the Panchayat Samiti proceeded take a decision in the matter under its supervisory jurisdiction. There can be no doubt that even while exercising the powers under Section 70 -A of the Act, the Panchayat Samiti is bound of hear such of the parties whose rights are going to the affected by the orders that it intended to pass. The Collector was not right in observing that the Panchayat Samiti was taking proceeding in respect of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and no notice was necessary in the matter to the petitioner. As the petitioner was vitally interested in the matter, a notice to him in respect of the intention of the Panchayat Samiti to cancel the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated April 4, 1976, was necessary Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing for the Panchayat Samiti, submits that now an Administrator has been appointed who is looking after the affairs of the Panchayat Samiti and that the Administrator would be willing to give a hearing to the petitioner.