Everything including the transaction in favour of the petitioner was very much available to the respondent authorities. It was incumbent upon the Collector to have heard the petitioner and pass the order, but he chose not to do so, which lapse, is erroneous exercise of the powers. Pertinently, the respondent nos.4 and 5 have purchased the land from the respondent nos.6 to 8 and respondent nos.4 and 5, in turn, sold away property in favour of the petitioner. The transaction having certified, it is believed that factum of petitioner having subsequently purchased the land in question, was very much known to the authorities, but the Collector, ignoring such aspect, has passed the order. Though, the Collector has cancelled the entry nos.1616 and 1617 in favour of the respondent nos.4 and 5, effect of cancellation will have a direct bearing on the entries in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as, the transaction in favour of the petitioner would remain defective. Specific contention was raised by the petitioner before the learned Secretary and it was expected of the learned Secretary, when found, that the petitioner was not heard and the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, should have remitted the matter to the Collector to be decided afresh but, in the reasoning part, there is not a whisper about the said aspect and the learned Secretary proceeded to decide the matter on merits. This Court would have remitted the matter; however, considering the facts and the principle governing such facts and discussed in previous paragraph, both the orders, deserve to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, on all counts, both the orders of the Collector so also, the learned Secretary are hereby quashed and set aside.
