DARSHAN PAUL Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, vide his order, dated 19 -3 -1985 has recommended that the mutation Nos. 1969, 1973, 1974, 1977 and 1978 of village Rajakhas and mutation No. 326 of tika Jhangrada, which were attested by the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, vide his order, dated 29 -8 -1981 without hearing the petitioner, Darshan Paul, should be quashed and the case remanded to him for passing a fresh order after hearing the parties. It has been further added by the learned Divisional Commissioner that while in some orders passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade attesting the mutation, presence of Darshan Paul has been recorded, in others, it appears that the orders were passed behind the back of Darshan Paul. Since the principles of natural justice require that reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the petitioner, the mutations which were attested behind the petitioners back should be quashed.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsels for Shri Darshan Paul and the other respondents as well as the learned District Attorney for the State. I have also perused the court record. There are 10 cases of similar nature In all these cases, Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade attested the mutation conferring proprietary rights on Ram Kishan, Kishno and Bir Singh, in pursuance of the order, dated 27 -12 -1976 of the Land Reforms Officer. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, had merely given effect to the order passed by the Land Reforms Officer and if the petitioner, Darshan Paul was aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Officer, he should have preferred an appeal against it. It was further argued that not availing himself of the remedy of appeal, he could not assail the order of the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, who was merely attesting the mutation in order to give effect to the order of the Land Reforms Officer. It was further contended that the ground taken by the petitioner that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not given to him by the Assistant Collector, llnd Grade is not tenable and the appeal against the Assistant Collectors order should not have been entertained. The learned District Attorney, on the other hand, conceded that principles of natural justice had been violated and the petitioner, Darshan Paul being an employee of Controller of Defence Accounts> Northern Command should have been given an opportunity of being heard before the mutations were attested.

(3.) It is borne out from the perusal of the court record that in mutations No. 1969,1973, 1974,1977 and 1978 of village Rajakhas and mutation No. 326 of tika Jhangrada, the petitioner, Darshan Paul was not given an opportunity of being heard. As it was essential in the interest of justice to hear him before attesting the mutation, ends of Justice would be met if the order passed by the Assistant Collectot, IInd Grade is quashed as recommended by the Divisional Commissioner. In any case, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondents as Assistant Collector, llnd Grade, will decide the mutations afresh after hearing the parties. In view of the above, the recommendation made by the Divisional Commissioner is accepted and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, llnd Grade, in Mutations No. 1969, 1973, 1974, 1977 and 1978 of village Rajakhas and mutation No. 326 of tika Jhangrada are set -aside and the cases remanded to him for disposal afresh in accordance with law. This order will dispose of the revision petitions Nos. 78/8>, 79/85, 80/85, 81/85, 82/85, 83/85, 84/85, 85/85 and 86/85. A copy of the order be placed on each file. The order may be communicated to the parties. Order accordingly. -