- (1.) Bishan Singh (since dead) and whose legal representatives have been brought on record, and two others filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and propriety of the order of the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Patti, District Amritsar, by which the allotment of land made in their favour was cancelled.
(2.) The facts which there is no dispute and which are material to decide the controversy that has been raised before me, read as under :- The petitioners are ex-servicemen. They were given 10 year's lease of the land out of the land which the State Government had purchased from the Central Government, on the ground that the same was be allotted to Ex-servicemen and Rai Sikhs. The petitioners under the lease were given possession of the land in dispute of some representation that had been made by the villagers of village Muthianwala without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, during the continuance of the period of lease for which it had been granted in their favour. On the basis of the cancellation order, respondent No. 2 served notices on the petitioners and some other persons to vacate the land in dispute, with the result that the present petition had to be filed calling in question the ejectment notice and the earlier proceedings. Mr. Achhra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the lease which was granted in favour of the petitioners could not legally be cancelled without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and behind their back. In my view, there is considerable force in this contention of the learned counsel. Admittedly, the lease was granted in favour of the petitioners for 10 years, with a stipulation that after the expiry of a period of 5 years, the lessee had the option to purchase the land at the rates mentioned in para 3 of the petition. The petitioner had obtained the possession of the land under the lease. I fail to understand as to how on the representation of certain persons, the State Government without affording an opportunity of hearing, could cancel the lease granted in favour of the petitioners. The action of the State Government in cancellation the lease offends the principles of natural justice and cannot legally be sustained.
(3.) In view of my decision on the first contention of the learned counsel, I do not propose to deal with the other contentions.;