GRAM PANCHAYAT, REWARA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1026/97) 1 GRAM PANCHAYAT, REWARA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1026/97) Dated:- 23.4.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. M.S.Singhvi ) Mr. Manish Patel ) for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Bissa, Additional Government Counsel, for the respondents. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.12.96 passed by the District Collector, Chittorgarh cancelling the order dated 22.7.89 allotting 5 bighas land comprising Araji No. 111 at Village Pahuni to the petitioner for the purpose of Abadi. 2. The brief facts for the present purpose are that a piece of land measuring 5 bighas situated in Araji No.111 in Village Pahuni which falls within the jurisdiction of petitioner was converted from pasture land to Abadi land and allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 22.7.89 passed by the District Collector, Chittorgarh. It is stated that after the allotment as aforesaid, the State Government constructed Primary Health Sub Centre,Anganwari Kendra and some other buildings over the land in question. The petitioner also issued pattas of various plots to different persons out of the land in question. That apart, some portion of the land is also being used for general public purpose. GRAM PANCHAYAT, REWARA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1026/97) 2 However, all of a sudden without giving any notice to the petitioner vide order dated 19.12.96 issued by the District Collector, Chittorgarh the allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 22.7.89 has been cancelled on the ground that the land is being used for public purpose and there exists a dispute about its user for the purpose of Abadi. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is no provision under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953( in short “the Act of 1953”) or under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ( in short “the Act of 1994”) empowering the Collector to cancel the land vested in the Panchayat Raj Institution. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing has been given to petitioner therefore the same is illegal having been passed in the breach of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel submitted that simply because some portion of the land belonging to the petitioner is used by the public for public purposes cannot be a ground for cancelling the allotment or depriving the petitioner of property vested in it. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that the authority who has allotted the land to the petitioner is vested with the power to cancel the allotment as well. The learned counsel urged that the reasons for cancellation GRAM PANCHAYAT, REWARA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1026/97) 3 have been delineated in the order itself and therefore, it cannot be said that it has been passed in arbitrary manner. The learned counsel submitted that before cancellation of the plot no opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner and the allotting authority has committed no error in cancelling the allotment order for the reasons assigned. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It is not disputed before this court that the land set apart for the development of the Abadi and set at disposal of the Panchayati Raj Institution shall vest in such Panchayati Raj Institution by virtue of the provisions of Section 88 of Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 and Section 63 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It is also not in dispute that after the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority, certain constructions such as Primary Health Centre , Anganwari Kenra etc. have been raised. That apart, according to the petitioner, the pattas of plots out of the aforesaid land have also been allotted to certain persons. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner cannot be divested the property vested in it without giving any opportunity of hearing . Moreover, a perusal of the impugned order does not disclose as to at whose instance the proceedings for cancellation GRAM PANCHAYAT, REWARA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1026/97) 4 of the allotment was initiated and what was the material available before the District Collector, Chittorgarh on the basis of which he has arrived arrived at the conclusion that the property is being used for public purpose and there exists a dispute regarding its user as Abadi land. It is fundamental principle of natural justice that the persons likely to be affected by an action of the public authority must always be fairly heard. Thus, the order impugned passed by the District Collector, Chittorgarh in gross violation of the principles of natural justice is not sustainable in eye of law. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed . The order impugned dated 19.12.96 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Collector, Chittorgarh for decision afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/-