Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Devayatbhai Baghubhai Khachar, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging three revenue orders: (1) order dated 30/03/2015 passed by the Deputy Collector cancelling rectified revenue entry no. 481; (2) order dated 28/02/2017 passed by the Collector confirming the Deputy Collector's order; and (3) order dated 15/03/2019 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) dismissing the revision application. The dispute pertains to agricultural land bearing survey no. 54/2 situated at village Haldad, Taluka and District Botad. The petitioner's predecessors held the land, and a rectification entry was made showing the petitioner as owner of 8 acres 8 gunthas. However, the Deputy Collector cancelled this entry without issuing any notice or hearing to the petitioner, reducing the area to 8 acres 19 gunthas and directing that the excess 11 gunthas be shown in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the orders were passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as he was not given any opportunity of hearing. The respondents argued that the petitioner had alternative remedy and that the petition suffered from delay and laches. The court held that the impugned orders were passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is a fundamental violation of natural justice. The court noted that the petitioner was not even aware of the proceedings before the Deputy Collector. Relying on the principle that an order passed in violation of natural justice is a nullity, the court quashed and set aside all three impugned orders and directed the respondent authorities to restore the rectified revenue entry no. 481 and give effect to the same. The court also directed that the excess 11 gunthas be shown in the name of the petitioner. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - High Court can interfere with revenue orders passed in violation of principles of natural justice, even if alternative remedy exists, when the order is patently illegal and causes grave injustice. (Paras 1-9) B) Revenue Law - Rectification of Revenue Entry - Natural Justice - Cancellation of entry without notice to the affected party is void ab initio - The Deputy Collector's order dated 30/03/2015, confirmed by Collector and SSRD, was set aside as the petitioner was not heard before the rectification entry was cancelled. (Paras 3-9) C) Limitation - Revenue Proceedings - Delay and Laches - The petitioner challenged orders after delay, but the court condoned delay as the orders were passed in violation of natural justice and the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings. (Paras 3-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Collector, and SSRD are sustainable in law when the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the rectification of revenue entry was cancelled.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30/03/2015, 28/02/2017, and 15/03/2019 are quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to restore rectified revenue entry no. 481 and give effect to the same, showing excess 11 gunthas in the name of the petitioner. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- revenue entry rectification
- limitation for challenging revenue orders
- scope of Article 226
