JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been submitted questioning the legality of the letters/orders dated 24.2.2005 and 19.8.2004 (placed on record collectively as Annexure-2) whereby a patta issued to the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat, Lohawat B.B. On 28.10.1999 is purported to be cancelled. 2. By the letter dated 24.2.2005, the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat has informed the petitioners that the patta granted to them had been cancelled by the Panchayati Raj Department. The said letter reads thus, - " vkidks viuk iV~Vk la@46 fely la0 60@1995&1996 tks 28-10-1999 dks xzke iapk;r yksgkoV }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk mijksDr iV~Vs dks iapk;rh jkt foHkkx t;iqj ds i= dzekad 2311 fnukad 19-8-2004 }kjk fujLr fd;k gSA fujLr ds vkns'k dh QksVks izfr lkFk layXu dj vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki dk mijksDr iV~Vk fujLr gSA ftldh lwpuk vkidks izsf"kr dh tkrh gSA ;g uksfVl vkt fnukad 24-2-2005 dks dk;kZy; ,oa esjh eksgj ls tkjh fd;k x;k gSA " 3. The letter/order dated 19.8.2004 that has been endorsed with the aforesaid letter dated 24.2.2005 and whereby the patta has allegedly been cancelled is a letter emanating from the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan and is addressed to the Additional Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, Jodhpur and reads thus, - " mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr izklafxd i= }kjk xzkr iapk;r erksM+k ,oa xzke iapk;r yksgkoV fo'ukokl esa tkjh fd;s x;s iV~Vksa dks fujLr djus ds laca/k esa ekxZn'kZu pkgk gS fd mDr iV~Vksa dks fdl fu;e ds rgr fujLr fd;k tkos rFkk D;k izfdz;k viukbZ tkosA bl laca/k esa ys[k gS fd iV~Vksa dks fujLr djus gsrq iapk;r dh i=koyh esa iV~Vksa ds fujLrhdj.k dh lwpuk ntZ dj lwpuk izkHkkfor i{k dks nsa rFkk iapk;r ds uksfVl cksMZ ij Hkh lwpuk yxkosaA " 4. The petitioners have submitted that they were issued patta by the aforesaid Gram Panchayat on 28.10.1999 as their families and forefathers were residing at the land in question since time immemorial and having ancestral house constructed on it. According to the petitioners, they were surprised to receive the letter dated 24.2.2005 and it has been maintained that prior to such cancellation, they were never given any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was allowed to them; and to the best of their knowledge, no appeal or revision was preferred for cancellation of patta. According to the petitioners, they were surprised to receive the letter dated 24.2.2005 and it has been maintained that prior to such cancellation, they were never given any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was allowed to them; and to the best of their knowledge, no appeal or revision was preferred for cancellation of patta. The petitioners have contended that orders dated 24.2.2005 and 19.8.2004 are illegal and unjustified as no notice was served upon them nor any enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity of hearing was extended. 5. In response to the notice of this petition, two separate replies have been submitted, one by the State and the Deputy Legal Remembrancer of Panchayati Raj Department (respondents No. 1 and 2) and another by Gram Panchayat, Lohawat B.B. (respondent No. 3) respondents No. 1 and 2 have not denied the fact that patta was issued to the petitioners and that the letter/order dated 19.8.2004 was issued. However, the allegations of not serving any notice on -the, petitioners have been denied with the averments that notice were issued by the Additional Collector-II on 5.7.2002 and a copy of the notice has been annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1. The averments that no appeal or revision was preferred for cancellation of patta have been denied with the submissions that one Radhey Shyam Chhipa submitted a complaint about irregularities in issuance of patta and on the said complaint, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Jodhpur and the enquiry report has also been placed on record as Annexure R-2. It has been contended that the said Radhey Shyam Chhipa submitted a revision before the State Government and the State Government by its order dated 24.9.2003 cancelled the patta. A copy of the order dated 24.9.2003 has been placed on record as Annexure R-3 and it has been contended that the petitioners have neither challenged the order dated 24.9.2003 nor impleaded the revisionist as party, and, therefore, the present petition was not maintainable. It has also been submitted that the patta has been cancelled by the State Government and the Sarpanch has merely communicated the order passed by the State Government. 6. It has also been submitted that the patta has been cancelled by the State Government and the Sarpanch has merely communicated the order passed by the State Government. 6. The respondent No. 3, Gram Panchayat, in its reply has submitted that the pattas were ordered to be cancelled by the Divisional Commissioner by the order dated 28.8.2003 in the proceedings under Section 38 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 against the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Lohawat B.B., Smt. Anchi Devi. It has been submitted that the proceedings under Section 38 were initiated against the said Sarpanch on the allegations that costly land of Gram Panchayat was allotted on a meager amount by committing various irregularities and the charge against the Sarpanch was proved and, therefore, while recording findings against the then Sarpanch, the Divisional Commissioner recommended for cancellation of pattas issued by her; and it has been urged that the petitioners have failed to challenge the order dated 28.8.2003, hence this petition is liable to be dismissed. It has been maintained that the pattas issued by the then Sarpanch were entirely illegal as the same were not issued in accordance with law and were distributed to the favoured persons at a meager amount. It has further been submitted that the respondent No. 2 had given the directions for cancellation of pattas in pursuance of the findings given by the Divisional Commissioner dated 28.8.2003 in the proceedings under Section 38 of the Act of 1994 against the then Sarpanch Smt. Anchi Devi. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the respondents have acted wholly illegally in proceeding to cancel the patta, a document of title granted by the Gram Panchayat, at their whims and wishes without adopting any proceeding for its cancellation and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners; that the Act of 1994 does not confer any such power on the respondent No. 2 to issue such directions for cancelling the patta issued by the Panchayat; and that the letters/orders dated 19.8.2004 and 24.2.2005 are wholly illegal and unauthorized. Learned counsel appearing for respondents have referred to the enquiry report of the Additional Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, Jodhpur and contended that scores of. Learned counsel appearing for respondents have referred to the enquiry report of the Additional Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, Jodhpur and contended that scores of. patta were issued in a wholly unlawful and rather clandestine manner by the then Sarpanch; and that the proceedings were adopted after due enquiry in the matter when it was found that the land worth crores of rupees were sought to be freely squandered away by the then Sarpanch to the favoured persons. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties repeatedly at length, this Court is unable to countenance the procedure adopted by the respondents; and this Court is clearly of opinion that the letters dated 19.8.2004 and 24.2.2005 (Annexure-2) deserve to be quashed being violative of the fundamental principles of justice and fair play. 9. It is not in dispute that patta Annexure-1 was in fact issued by the Gram Panchayat, Lohawat B.B. in favour of the petitioners on 28.10.1999. It appears that there have been serious doubts and disputes about the legality and validity of the procedure adopted while issuing such and other pattas and it has been maintained by the respondents that the then Sarpanch extended favours while issuing this and other akin pattas. However, the manner in which the object of canceling the patta has been sought to be achieved leaves much to be desired. 10. It is apparent on the face of record that the petitioners have never been served any notice for any proceedings for cancellation of patta and in fact the respondents have merely come out with all confusions, obscurities and vegueness on the core question if at all the patta in question was cancelled in appropriate proceedings in which the petitioners had been afforded an opportunity of hearing? 11. In the first place, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have maintained that a notice was served on the petitioners and have placed a photostat thereof on record as Annexure R-1.'The endorsement of the process server on the said notice shows that it had been specifically returned back, unserved. Moreover, the said notice had been for the date of hearing of 10.7.2002 in relation to some Case No. 173/2002 and had been issued by the Additional Collector-II, Jodhpur. It is not borne out from the said notice as to which proceedings such notice related to? Moreover, the said notice had been for the date of hearing of 10.7.2002 in relation to some Case No. 173/2002 and had been issued by the Additional Collector-II, Jodhpur. It is not borne out from the said notice as to which proceedings such notice related to? It has also not been shown if the Additional Collector-II, Jodhpur at all passed any order in those unknown proceedings; and, as to what ultimately happened to those proceedings? 12. Then, it has been asserted in the reply by the respondents No. 1 and that the patta was cancelled by the Government by way of the order dated 24.9.2003 in a revision petition submitted by one Radhey Shyam Chhipa. It has never been the case of the respondents that the petitioners were ever served with any notice for appearance in any such revision petition filed by the said complainant and taken up by the Government in its Panchayati Raj Department. 13. Then, the respondent No. 3 Gram Panchayat has asserted in its reply that the pattas were cancelled as recommended by way of an order dated 28.8.2003 by the Divisional Commissioner in the enquiry against the then Sarpanch. Neither the said order dated 28.8.2003 has been placed on record nor it has been suggested that the petitioners were ever served with any notice for such enquiry proceedings against the then Sarpanch. 14. It appears that in their over-anxiety to some how get the pattas cancelled, the respondents have chosen to ignore all the basics required for adopting appropriate proceedings; and in order to justify their misconceived actions impugned in this writ petition, have come out with incongruous averments about the proceedings. The reply submissions of the respondents No. 1 and 2 on one hand and those of the respondent No. 3 on the other could be read together no notice the confusion worst confounded by the respondents: Respondents No. 1 and 2 (Para D) Respondent No. 3 (Preliminary Objection) "The patta has been cancelled by the State Government vide order dated 24.9.2003. The Sarpanch has merely communicated the order passed by the State Government." "It is submitted that in the present case, the pattas were ordered to be cancelled by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 28.8.2003 in the proceedings under Section 38 against the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat..." 15. The Sarpanch has merely communicated the order passed by the State Government." "It is submitted that in the present case, the pattas were ordered to be cancelled by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 28.8.2003 in the proceedings under Section 38 against the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat..." 15. The manner in which the Government has chosen to deal with this matter sounds further strange and even while passing the order dated 24.9.2003 in the so-called revision petition filed by a complainant, the Government has adopted a procedure unknown to law. As pointed out above, it has not been the case of the respondents No. 1 and 2 that before passing of the order dated 24.9.2003, any notice was served on the petitioners. A comprehension of the facts available on record further shows that on the basis of, a complaint made, the Additional Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, Jodhpur conducted enquiry and the enquiry report placed on record as Annexure R-2 makes it clear that for the purpose of the said enquiry, notices were served only on the Sarpanch and the Gram Sewak and thereafter, the Additional Chief Executive Officer inspected the site on 22.3.2002 and then obtained figures of market rate of the land of village Lohawat from Sub-Registrar, Phalodi and thereafter concluded that Ex- Sarpanch had sold the land at abnormally low rate resulting in loss to the Panchayat in crores of rupees; and that in the name of regularization, all the requirements of rules were violated by the Sarpanch. It has been stated in the report that the charges against the said Sarpanch were being sent to the Divisional Commissioner and revision petitions were being submitted to the Collector for cancellation of pattas. A perusal of the order dated 24.9.2003 shows that the Government has called for the record and examined the report submitted by the Additional Chief Executive Officer and then the entire report has been reproduced verbatim in the order dated 24.9.2003 and then the Additional Chief Executive Officer has been directed to get the pattas cancelled. The assertion as made in the reply submitted to this Court by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that pattas were cancelled by the order dated 24.9.2003 itself sounds vague and incorrect. 16. The assertion as made in the reply submitted to this Court by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that pattas were cancelled by the order dated 24.9.2003 itself sounds vague and incorrect. 16. From the typed copy of the order dated 24.9.2003 as placed on record, it appears that the Government has only directed the Additional Chief Executive Officer to get the pattas cancelled and, may be, to that extent it was an inter- department matter. It appears that Additional Chief Executive Officer had already stated in his enquiry report that revision petitions were being submitted to the Collector and upon receipt of the order dated 24.9.2003 probably sought guidance from the Government for the procedure to be adopted for cancellation of pattas, and in the name of guidance, the letter dated 19.8.2004 was issued that remains entirely indiscreet, inapt and beyond fundamental principles of law. 17. The entire of such letter dated 19.8.2004 has been reproduced hereinbefore. According to the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer, for cancelling a patta issued by the Panchayat, one should put a note to that effect on the file of Panchayat and inform the affected party and place one notice on Panchayat Notice Board. This Court is unable to appreciate that the respondent No. 2 has chosen to State such a course in the name of 'guidance' for proper procedure for cancellation of pattas. 18. On the other hand, the Panchayat has purported to reply upon an order passed against the then Sarpanch on 28.8.2003 in proceedings under Section 38 of the Act of 1994 to suggest that the patta was cancelled by virtue of such order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. However, neither the said order has been placed on record nor it is borne out as to how the petitioner's patta could ipso facto come to an end by virtue of the said order? 19. It needs no emphasis that when any order or action results in civil or evil consequences on a person, the fundamental principles of natural justice require adequate opportunity of hearing to the person concerened. Even if the patta in question was sought to be questioned for alleged illegalities and irregularities, the patta once having been granted by the Panchayat could not have been taken away or annulled by a simple endorsement on the file of Panchayat. Even if the patta in question was sought to be questioned for alleged illegalities and irregularities, the patta once having been granted by the Panchayat could not have been taken away or annulled by a simple endorsement on the file of Panchayat. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of opinion that the impugned letters dated 24.2.2005 and 19.8.2004 (Annexure-2) cannot be sustained for being wholly illegal, unwarranted and unauthorized and are liable to be quashed. However, it is required to be made clear that the impugned action is being quashed for being violative of the principles of natural justice and because of denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners; and else, this Court has not pronounced on merits of the case nor any observations made herein shall be taken to be of any comment on the merits of the case nor this order would be of any impediment for the respondents in adopting suitable proceedings in accordance with law. 20. As a result of the aforesaid, this writ petition succeeds to the extent indicated above. The impugned letters dated 24.2.2005 and 19.8.2004 (AnnPxure- 2) are quashed and set aside. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******