The Court set aside a Registrar’s notice for cancellation of Government land assignment under BSO 15(18) because it was vague and failed to specify the grounds for the proposed enquiry, violating principles of natural justice.
The impugned notice dated 28.01.2012 was set aside. The Writ Petition was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.3019 OF 2012
Dated: 16.02.2012
Between:
1. Ubbarapu Subbarayudu and 7 others. ..... Petitioners
AND
1. The Joint Collector, Office of the District Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, at Nellore and 2 others. ..Respondents
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.3019 OF 2012
ORDER :
The petitioners herein were assigned small extents of Government lands situated in different villages of Udayagiri Mandal of Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District and all of them were granted D- form pattas in the year 1997. By order dated 16.04.2011 the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar, Udayagiri Mandal cancelled the said assignments on the ground that the assignments were obtained by misrepresentation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had earlier filed W.P.No.31346 of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 2.12.2011 setting aside the impugned order on the ground that the 3rd respondent was not competent to cancel the assignment on the allegations of misrepresentation and that as per BSO 15 (18) the Collector/Joint Collector alone was competent. However liberty was granted to the Joint Collector/District Collector to take necessary action for cancellation of the assignment in case he was satisfied that the assignment was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.
Subsequently, the impugned notice dated 28.1.2012 has been issued by the 1st respondent – Joint Collector calling upon the petitioners to attend the enquiry proposed to be held on 4.2.2012 for cancellation of the assignments under BSO 15(18) as per the order in W.P.No.31346 of 2011.
The said notice is challenged in this writ petition contending inter alia that the purpose for which the enquiry is sought to be conducted by the 1st respondent has not been mentioned in the impugned notice and that the said notice is issued by the 1st respondent mechanically without recording his satisfaction about the material irregularity, if any, in granting the
assignment in favour of the petitioners.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
On a perusal of the impugned notice, dated, 28.01.2012, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said notice is absolutely vague and is silent about the ground upon which the enquiry is sought to be conducted. As per BSO 15 (18) an assignment can be cancelled by the District Collector in exercise of revisional powers if the Collector is satisfied that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the powers of the officer who passed it or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, in case the 1st respondent intends to exercise the said power conferred under BSO 15 (18), it is necessary to specify in the show-cause notice the grounds upon which the assignment is sought to be cancelled and the basis for the prima facie satisfaction of the Collector for invoking the powers under BSO 15(18). Apparently, the impugned notice did not contain any such particulars. The said notice is not adequate to enable the petitioners to make an effective representation against the proposed action. Such a vague notice which does not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard cannot be sustained being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside on that ground alone.
It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the earlier order of cancellation passed by the Tahsildar was on the allegation that the petitioners were non-residents of the villages in respect of which the lands were assigned. While relying upon P. SREE RAMULA REDDY & OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, HYDERABAD & OTHERS[1] the learned counsel vehemently contended that the initiation of the proceedings for
cancellation of the assignment under BSO.15 (18) on the ground that the assignees are not the residents of the concerned villages is not permissible under law.
I am not inclined to express any opinion on the said contention in view of the finding recorded above that the impugned notice being absolutely vague is unsustainable.
Accordingly, the impugned notice is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.31346 of 2011. No costs.
_____________ G. ROHINI, J
Dt: 16.02.2012 Note:- CC in one week. (B/O) gbs
[1] 2002 (1) L.S. 299 (D.B.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a show-cause notice for cancellation of land assignment under BSO 15(18) is valid if it fails to state the grounds for the proposed enquiry.
Whether a vague notice depriving the petitioner of reasonable opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. SREE RAMULA REDDY & OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, HYDERABAD & OTHERS [1]Referred¶17
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ubbarapu Subbarayudu
The Joint Collector
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
