Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 640 (PAT)

Kripa Narayan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-29

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. In the Government revenue records, Register II, the petitioner was recorded as a tenant. The private respondents made an application for change of name of tenant as recorded therein, it is not disputed that on the day when the Circle Officer received the application, he ordered an enquiry and on the same very day issued a public notice and on the same very day without notice to the petitioner deleted the petitioners name and substituted the name of private respondents as tenants. The petitioner on coming to know of this appealed before the D.C.L.R., who having appreciated the aforesaid facts set aside the order of the Anchal Adhikari. Thereafter the private-respondents preferred a revision before the Collector of the district. The Collector of the district referred to a civil court judgment purporting to be in favour of the private-respondents and allowed the revision application, thus restoring the order of Anchal Adhikari passed at the first instance. The present writ application is directed against the order of the Collector of the district. 3. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of private respondents submits that in view of the judgments of the Civil Court as well as the Consolidation Court the petitioner had no right to remain a tenant recorded in the Government revenue records and as such the Anchal Adhikari rightly mutated the name of private-respondents in place of petitioner. He further submits that entries in revenue records does not create any right, title or interest in any property in respect of any person nor it takes away or destroy any right, title or interest of any person in any property. 4. On the other hand, the petitioner submits that the judgment, in question, does not in fact decide the issue in the manner as submitted by Mr. Dwivedi. He further submits that before deleting the name of the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to be noticed and to be heard in the matter. Denial of natural justice is a prejudice in itself which cannot be cured in appeal or other proceedings. For this learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment in the case of S.L. Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan & Ors. since reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 136 as well as in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s. L.K. Ratna & Ors. For this learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment in the case of S.L. Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan & Ors. since reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 136 as well as in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s. L.K. Ratna & Ors. since reported in AIR 1987 SC 71 . 5. Later case was in respect to the contention of Mr. Dwivedi that if there was violation of principle of natural justice at the initial stage petitioner was given a hearing by the Collector of the district at the revisional stage and that would cure the defect. 6. Having considered the various submissions I am of the opinion that even though entry of name in revenue records neither create nor destroy any right, title or interest of any person in relation to any property, it does create a cloud on his right to enjoyment as against the third party. This cloud acts to his prejudice and to his detriment. He has an expectation to continue to be recorded as such and deprivation of that expectation itself without hearing would be enough prejudice. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan & Ors. in detail and the said decision covers and supports the submission on behalf of the petitioners as against the respondents. I, therefore hold that before a name can be deleted from revenue records showing a person to be the tenant, the person in law is to be noticed and given a chance of hearing. Denial of that right is a prejudice sufficient to hold that the order having been passed in violation of principle of natural justice was an order which was void ab initio and non est. Thus on the face of it the order of the Anchal Adhikari cannot be supported as it is void ab initio. 7. Coming to the question whether the denial of natural justice at the original stage can be or has been met by granting the person a hearing at the revisional stage, the answer lies in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s. L.K. Ratna & Ors. The Apex Court clearly held that the law does not enshrine an unfair trial followed by a fair appeal. The Apex Court clearly held that the law does not enshrine an unfair trial followed by a fair appeal. The case lays down that a fair trial is to be followed by a fair appeal. When the proceeding of the original court was a nullity, then the petitioner was denied a chance at the original stage. That denial cannot be met by providing opportunity at the appellate stage, which was required to be provided at the initial stage itself. Denial of natural justice at the original stage is incurable except in exceptional cases where emergent action is required. Even in such cases the Apex Court in a number of cases held that a post decisional hearing must be given by the same authority. In my view, there is no judgment of any court holding that no hearing whatsoever is required when a persons name is struck-off from the revenue register. 8. The last submission of Dwivedi that if the judgments of the Civil Court and the Consolidation Court are read in proper prospective, it would show that no wrong has been done to the petitioner. In my view, this is not the stage at which this court can be called upon to go into this issue because this issue is to be canvassed and decided at the first instance before the Anchal Adhikari where both parties would put forth their contentions. This court cannot be relegated to the first trial court i.e. Court of Anchal Adhikari and examine a matter, as an original authority, where the original authority had abdicated its function. It is just and proper to remand the matter to the original authority for considering the matter afresh after due notice to both the parties and after giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing. The rule of law must be upheld and must be enforced by this court otherwise palpably wrong order at the original stage would be allowed to get cured at subsequent stages. 9. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.4.2002 passed by the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua, in Mutation Revision No. 2 of 1999-2000 is set aside and the matter is remanded to Anchal Adhikari for decision in accordance with the direction, as indicated above.