ONKAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions common questions of law and fact arise and it would be convenient to dispose of the same by a common order.

(2.) IN village Chohtan, situated in District Barmer of the State of Rajas than, certain plots of land were sold by private negotiations by the Gram Pan-chayat, Chohtan to various persons including the petitioners, who were the purchasers in respect of one plot each. It appears that some complaints were made to the State Government that Shri Bhagwan Das, who was formerly the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Chohtan acting in collusion with certain officers of the State Government, caused the disputed plots of land of considerable value to be sold to the members of his family, relatives and other persons close to him and irregular sale deeds were executed in respect of the sale of such plots of land and possession over such plots was also delivered to the respective purchasers. The complaints were referred to the Collector, Barmer, who appears to have got an enquiry made into the matter by the Deputy District Development Officer, Barmer. The Collector, Barmer came to the conclusion, as a result of the preliminary enquiry, that Bhagwan Das, Former Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Chohtan got the aforesaid plots of land sold by private negotiation to some persons who got sale deeds executed irregularly and the purchasers were also put into unlawful possession over such plots of land. There upon, acting under the provisions of R 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyay Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the Collector, Barmer, by his order dated 3/5 June, 1978 set aside all the sales made by the Gram Panchayat, Chohtan through the former Sarpanch, Bhagwandas, including the sales made in favour of the petitioners and directed the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Chohtan to take possession of all the said plots of land He also directed the Sarpanch to take the assistance of the police force, in case the purchasers resisted the recovery of possession from them.

(3.) NATURAL justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. The inquiry must, always be "does fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard should be given to the person affected. " Whether the petitioner had a valid sale or not in his favour was itself a matter of enquiry and as such it was necessary that the Collector should have given notice of the petitioners and he should have afforded them an opportunity of hearing in the matter. The action of the Collector in interfering with the rights of the petitioners by setting aside the sales made in their favour by the Gram Panchayat, without giving any notice to them and without affording an opportunity of hearing to them in the matter, must be deprecated. It was also incumbent upon the Collector to find out whether the petitioners had any lawful right or title to the plots of land or not and whether they were put in possession of the plots in dispute or not. The Collector directed the Gram Panchayat to secure the assistance from the police force in order to take immediate possession of the plots of land in dispute from the petitioners. In my view, this part of the order of the learned Collector was passed with a view to terrorise the petitioners, for which there was no justification at all.