- (1.) The land in dispute was allotted to Ganda Ram by the Rehabilitation Authorities. He sold the said land to Teja Singh, Nek Singh and Bant Singh respondents who in turn further transferred it to Chhajju Singh etc. plaintiff-respondents vide sale deed dated May 26, 1973. Thereafter, the Managing Officer, Jullundur, vide his orders dated October 21, 1974 cancelled the order whereby the allotment of the said land had been made in the name of Ganda Ram. Consequently, respondents No. 1 to 4 filed the present suit for a declaration that the order of cancellation was void and without jurisdiction having been passed without notice either to Ganda Ram or to Teja Singh etc. In the alternative they claimed recovery of Rs. 20,000/- from Teja Singh and other persons from whom they had purchased the land in dispute. The trial Court framed 7 issues which need not be noticed here because the judgment of the trial Court has to be affirmed on the decision of issue No. 2 alone which reads as under :- ''Whether the order of cancellation of allotment of Ganda Ram is valid and according to law?'' The said issue was answered in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit decreed. Aggrieved thereby the State has come up in this appeal.
(2.) It was admitted by the Assistant Registrar who appeared as witness on behalf of the State that the notice issued to Teja Singh had been received back with the report that he was not available at his house. The other two notices issued to Nek Singh and Bant Singh were not received back, served or otherwise. It was further admitted that no notice at all was issued to Ganda Ram. It is, therefore, evident that neither Ganda Ram nor his successors-in- interest were served with any notice before the order of allotment was cancelled. The order was passed not only in violation of the express provisions of Rule 117 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 but also without complying with the principles of natural justice. Such an order can certainly be challenged by way of suit in a civil Court and be declared void and ineffective against the persons who were necessary parties and were not afforded only opportunity of being heard. This appeal, therefore, must fail and is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.;