CW-12897/10 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12897/2010 Abdul Qayyum Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 04/10/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dt.10.08.2010 (Annx.10) passed by Director, Local Bodies whereby order of cancellation regarding 'patta' dt.24.09.03 (Annx.1) issued in favour of respondent which was cancelled vide order dt.15.09.04 (Annx.4) without affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent, has been set aside with direction to hold inquiry and pass appropriate orders by the authority competent under law. It appears from the record that Municipal Council, Makrana issued a 'patta' in favour of the respondent Ikramuddeen on 24.09.03 in khasra no.768/1, as alleged in the petition. However, on objection being raised by the petitioner by way of submitting a representation before the Deputy Director (Regional), Local Bodies, Ajmer, the 'patta' issued in favour of the respondent was cancelled by the authority vide order CW-12897/10 (2) dt.15.09.04 (Annx.4) and it was directed to hold inquiry in accordance with law, which was challenged by the respondent before the authority u/s.300 of the Act. The respondent-1 after taking note of the submissions made that 'patta' which was issued to the respondent-4 has been cancelled by the authority without affording opportunity of hearing and its action being in violation of principles of natural justice, set aside the order dt.15.09.04 cancelling the 'patta' issued to the respondent, vide its order dt.10.08.2010 and liberty has been granted to the parties to adopt the procedure provided under law. Counsel taking assistance of the appeal being preferred by the respondent-4 and the factual report which has been placed on record as Annx.9, submits that when the error in issuing 'patta' in favour of the respondent has been admitted by the Municipal Council that it has wrongly been issued, in such circumstances the authority has committed error in setting aside the order dt.15.09.04 (Annx.4). He further submits that after the error being pointed out, holding inquiry and affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent-4 will be nothing but an empty formality and in such circumstances, the order CW-12897/10 (3) impugned dt.10.08.2010 deserves to be set aside. The submissions made are without substance for the reason that once the 'patta' being issued in favour of the respondent-4 way back on 24.09.03, certainly rights have been vested in favour of the allottee which could not have been divested in the ordinary course without opportunity of hearing being afforded to him and the authority while cancelling the 'patta' vide its order dt.15.09.04 has directed the Municipal Council to hold inquiry but when the 'patta' itself has been cancelled holding of inquiry thereafter is nothing but putting a cart before the horse and this is what has been noticed by the Director while exercising power u/s.300 of the Act and the authority after taking note thereof has set aside the order of cancellation dt.15.09.04 (Annx.4) vide its order impugned dt.10.08.2010 (Annx.10)and liberty has been granted to the parties to adopt the procedure provided under law. Obviously if the authority vests with competence under law, after affording opportunity of hearing and due compliance of principles of natural justice it can always proceed to examine the 'patta' allotted to the respondent but in absence whereof action of CW-12897/10 (4) the authority in cancelling the 'patta' issued in favour of the respondent-4 vide order dt.15.09.04 cannot be said to be legally sustainable and this what has been observed by the Director, Local Bodies in its order impugned dt.10.08.2010 (Annx.10). As regards non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and factual report furnished by Municipal Council dt.06.08.2010 (Annx.9), suffice it to say that these are all internal correspondences and the person in whose favour right has been vested on allotment of patta, certainly requires to be heard before any adverse decision being taken against him. This Court does not find substance in the writ petition. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. However, what has been observed by this Court will not come in the way of the petitioner while availing remedy available to him under law. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/-p.4 12897cw10Oct04FnlDsps.doc