Hazarat Ali Vs. Spl.
Land Acquisition Officer & ANR. [2009] INSC 678 (1 April 2009)
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5530 OF 2002 Hazarat Ali ...Appellant(s) Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel
for the parties.
By an order dated
8.02.1972, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Saundatti, allotted plot no. 749,
Block Nos. 1-2 of Rampura village District Belgaum, State of Karnataka, to the
appellant by treating him as displaced person. After one month and twenty eight
days, the concerned officer passed order dated 30.03.1972 whereby he revised
the allotment and allotted plot no. 749 to respondent no.2 - Imamsab Mohamadsab
Dupadal and one Fakiramma wife of Meerasah Pinjar. The appellant did not
challenge the allotment made in favour of respondent no.2 and Fakiramma but,
after more than twenty years, the Special Officer passed order dated 9.7.1992
whereby he cancelled the allotment made in favour of respondent no.2 and
Fakiramma on the ground that respondent no.2 is residing at Betageri in Dharwad
district and no document was produced in support of his eligibility as
displaced person.
Respondent no.2
challenged order dated 9.7.1992 in Writ Petition No. 6484/1999, which was
allowed by the learned Single Judge on 22.2.2000 on the ground that there was
no tangible reason for cancellation of the allotment after twenty years and
that too without affording opportunity of hearing to the allottee and making an
inquiry. The Division ...2/- -2- Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ
appeal preferred by the appellant and confirmed the findings recorded by the
learned Single Judge for invalidation of order dated 9.7.1992.
In our view, when the
order of cancellation was quashed on the ground that the same was passed
without giving notice to respondent no.2, the learned Single Judge ought to
have given liberty to the concerned authority to pass fresh order in accordance
with law. His failure to do so has caused prejudice to the appellant herein.
The Division Bench too committed the same error by not leaving it open to the
concerned officer to pass fresh order.
Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed in part, impugned orders are modified and it is made clear
that the concerned officer shall be free to pass fresh order in accordance with
law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected persons.
No costs.
......................J.
[B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
New
Delhi,
April
01, 2009.
Back
Pages: 1 2
