HIQH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH : Bll.ASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) W3. ^06 OF 2008 PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS 2. 3. 4; Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, spn of Late Brijbhushan Agawal, aged 42 years. resident of Near Sarvodaya Hospitaf, Dubey Colony, Mova, Raipur. ; Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sscretary, Department of' Revenus, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. The Coflector, Raipur. The Tahsildar, Raipur. Gram Seva Samiti,a registered society, through fts Secre&ry Shri ,/\jay Tiwari, totehery Chowk, Raipur. ^Vrit petition under Article 226/227 oftheConstftutiontrflndfa) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri SaBsh K. Agnihotri, J. Presenf Siwi B.P. Sharma, AA/ocats with Shri K. Sharma, Ach/ocate for the pstitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dt. Govt. Advoc^e for the State/responyenteNo.'ttp 3. Shri R.N, Pusty, Advpcate^orthe respondentNo.4. ORDERfORAU (Passed onthis 13'l'daypfJuly, %09) Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 2) Challenge in this petition Is to tt»wderdated 29-11-2008 (Anr»xure - P/5) passed by the Collector, Raipur, in case No.05/B-121iQ008-09 whereby the order of the Tahsildar dated 31-1-2008 mutating nams <rf the petitioner in the ravenue record has been quashed and it was (Brected to take steps to handover possession of the property in dispufs to ttie respondent No.4 3)_ Shri Sharma, toarned counsel appaaring for the petitionsr, submjts that without affording an opportunity of hearing, on allegations made by the respondent No.4, the Gollector has passed the impugned order. Tha basic principles of natural jusUce and fair play-in-action' is ttiat no one should be condemned unheard. '; 4) -Per contra, Shri Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the respen(teht No.4, submits that all the documents wers Torged by the petltioner and the order wa? obtajned from the Tahsildar on the basis offorged documents. t ,11 -n 1:1 l-i: ^ P- : !'3 3; M KSS IKe Ki EHi a iM BBIuiL..:.,.-—, Gowri jy 5) Be thatas it may, even if there is an allegation of forged dpcuments, the petBioher may be granted an opportunityto rebutand to explain the allegations made by the respondent N6.4. tt appears that the Celletstor has passed the impugned order without following the basic principles of naturai justice. Thus, the same is vitiated. 6) In view of foregoing, without expressing any opinionon the raerits of the case, the impugned orderdated29-11-2008 passed by-the Coliector is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Coilector for taking fresh decision afteraffording proper opportunity of hearing to all the persons concemed (parties). 7) At this stage, it is submitted byShri Pusfy, leamed counset appearing for the respondent No.4 that appeai against Uie order dated 31-1-2008 was preferred beforethe Sub Divisional CTficer and the sanw has been disposed of. Thesaid contention may t>e considered by the Colledor at appropriat® stage.in accordancewift law. 8) It is made clear that after the order passed by the Cellector, if any grievance subsists; liberty is reserved to the parties to avail ttw remedy available under the provisions of law. 9) Witti the aforesaid observadens and clireetions the petition is attowed to the extent indicated above. No orderasto costs. Sdl- ,^A?^ ^^ •Aotri -i ^.; !;;i*SI III ,ia BS 3@ii