SAVITRI DEVI Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Savitri Devi praying for issuance of a writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari for quashing the order of the Collector Sriganganagar Ex. 4 and further restraining him from taking further proceedings in pursuance of Ex. 4.

(2.) THE material facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are as under: The petitioner is a Khatedar of agricultural land. Formerly the petitioner had 42 bighas 15 biswas of land in her Khatedar in pursuance of award dated 27 -11 -59. A settlement parcha was also issued in favoir of the petitioner which is Ex. 2. At that time one Shri Gurdeosingh has raised dispute regarding the part of land mentioned in Schedule B of the writ petition which was given to the petitioner under the award. Shri Gurdeosingh filed a writ petition in this court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1990 of 1973. In that case Shri Gurdeosingh obtained ad interim order but later on the same was vacated on 11 -3 -74. It may also be noted here that one Shri Gurjarsingh had also filed a suit regarding a part of the land measuring 7 bighas out of land mentioned in Schedule B in the court of Additional Collector, Sriganganagar. That suit was decreed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner which is still pending. The petitioner stated that Shri Gurjarsingh is in illegal possession of the piece of land mentioned above. The further case of the petitioner is that she had sold 17 bighas out of the land mentioned in schedule B and the petitioner is now in cultivatory peaceful possession of the land as mentioned in schedule A attached to the writ petition. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Collector Ganganagar in course of the Revenue camp on 19 -10 -77 at village Talvara cancelled the mutation made in favour of the petitioner of the lands and ordered the resumption without any notice or with but hearing her. The petitioner therefore contends that the order Ex. 4 canceling the mutation is illegal and invalid as it b violative of principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard before the order canceling the mutation was passed.

(3.) IT has been seriously contended by Mr. Pareekh on behalf of the petitioner that no reasonable opportunity of being heard was ever given to the petitioner before canceling the petitioner's Khatedar rights. It is submitted that all of a sudden without giving previous notice to the petitioner of the date of hearing the Collector came to the village, held a village gathering and made oral inquiries and did not give sufficient and adequate opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy the Collector that she holds Khatedar rights under a valid settlement parcha. On this basis it has been urged that there is a clear breach of principle of alterm and partem.