Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 623 (GAU)

Lalzidingaralte v. State of Mizoram

2008-08-26

H.BARUAH

body2008
JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for the State Respondents. 2. Order dated 23rd July, 2007 passed by the Director, Land Revenue and Settlement, Mizoram, Aizawl communicated vide Memo No. C. 15016/12/06-DISP/DTE(REV) dated 23.7.2007 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 3. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are both husband and wife while writ Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are their daughters aged about 8 to 10 years respectively. All the four writ Petitioners were allotted lands by the revenue authority, Government of Mizoram vide different LSCs issued in their name on different dates. In respect of portion of land described therein the writ Petitioners by virtue of LSCs issued in their favour have been in possession and occupation of the plots of land covered by it. Petitioner No. 1 earlier to this occasion filed a writ petition before this Court in respect of his land covered by LSC No. 103203/01/1273 of 2005 for quashing an order dated 15.7.2005 passed by the Respondent No. 3 which had been registered as W.P.(C) No. 13 of 2006 and disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.5.2006 with a direction to the Respondent No. 3 to complete such inquiry as was necessary and to take a final decision on the basis of such inquiry within a period of 45(forty-five) days from the date of the order and also to communicate the result of the inquiry so made. But the Respondent No. 3 suddenly issued the order impugned stating inter alia that the verification was done per order dated 12.5.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Court in WP No. 13 of 2006 and came to a conclusion that the land of the Petitioner and his children falls within the land of the Respondent No. 5 and 6, the Power and Electricity Department, Government of Mizoram and, therefore, all the Land Settlement Certificate issued in favour of the writ Petitioners were cancelled per decision of the Government. 4. 4. It is contended by the writ Petitioners that all the Land Settlement Certificates issued in their favour were issued prior to the issuance of Land Lease No. DPL-94 of 2005 on 7.9.2005 in favour of Power and Electricity Department, Government of Mizoram and that being so the writ Petitioners have got right of preference over the lands covered by the lands settlement certificates, but the cancellation so made of the LSCs vide impugned order by the Respondent No. 3 was made without giving an opportunity to the writ Petitioner of being heard and to put their grievance before appropriate authority (Respondent No. 3) before such cancellation. The writ Petitioners, therefore, contended that there is a complete violation of principles of natural justice and for that the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 3 cannot legally stand. The writ Petitioners, therefore, prayed this Court to set aside and quashed the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 3. 5. The Respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is contended that before cancellation of the LSCs, a show cause notice was served on the Petitioners giving 15 days time for submission of written replay vide No. C. 15016/12/06-DISP/DTE(REV) dated 13.6.2007. But the Petitioners failed to submit any written reply. Further it is also contended that the land measuring 39 bighas was acquired from three persons for establishment of a substation at Zuangtui in the year 1972 by the Power and Electricity Department after payment of compensation of Rs. 1,13,166/- through the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl and again Anr. piece of land measuring 59.49 bighas was acquired after payment of compensation to the persons concerned amounting to Rs. 43,04,350/- and, therefore the LSCs issued in favour of the writ Petitioners were mistakenly issued by the revenue department for which it is contended that WP(C) No. 13 of 2006 came up for hearing before this Court initiated by writ Petitioner No. 1. Since the land belonged to Power and Electricity Department, acquired for the purpose of establishment of substation, the LSCs issued in favour of the writ Petitioners were cancelled vide impugned order after verification as per direction of the court passed in connection with WP(C) No. 16 of 2006. In the facts situation the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 3. 6. In the facts situation the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 3. 6. There is no dispute in respect of issuance of LSCs in favour of the writ Petitioners in regard to the lands described therein by the Revenue Department, Government of Mizoram. After issuance of such LSCs, the writ Petitioners have been possessing the same after payment of requisite rent therefore to the State Government. For cancellation of such LSCs by the appropriate authority on the ground of allotment of the land in favour of Power and Electricity Department, reasonable opportunity ought to have given to the writ Petitioners to put their grievance. Since no such opportunity was given to the writ Petitioners of being heard, it is submitted by Mr. Prusty that there is a complete violation of principles of natural justice and for that the impugned order cannot stand. If the land was acquired in the year 1972 in favour of Power and Electricity Department for construction of a sub-station, there was no reason on the part of the revenue department to issue such LSCs in favour of the writ Petitioners, of course after inquiry as per direction of this Court in connection with WP(C) No. 13 of 2006. Facts revealed that land was allotted to Power and Electricity Department and the writ Petitioner No. 1 herein, was present while making such investigation per direction of this Court and this impugned order was passed on the ground that the land had been allotted to Power and Electricity Department. That apart there is nothing on the record to show to substantiate the claim of the Respondents that appropriate notice had been issued to the writ Petitioners to show cause why LSCs should not be cancelled although such claim is averred in their affidavit-in-opposition. When there is no document to that effect available before this Court, such a statement of the Respondents made through the affidavit-in-opposition can be branded as a vague statement and can be taken into consideration in respect of issuance of show cause. This Court does not find any force in the argument advanced by Mr. N. Sailo, learned Addl. Advocate General in this context. 7. This Court does not find any force in the argument advanced by Mr. N. Sailo, learned Addl. Advocate General in this context. 7. It is reiterated by learned Counsel for the writ Petitioners that at no point of time notice was served to any of the writ Petitioners in regard to cancellation of LSCs in their names. It is submitted by Mr. P.C. Prusty that the claim of the Respondents in regard to issue of show cause notice to the writ Petitioners cannot be accepted minus placement of documents in support to fact. It is further submitted by the counsel for the writ Petitioners that their lands were allotted in favour of Power and Electricity Department, Government of Mizoram vide Land Lease No. DPL-94 of 2005 dated 7.9.2005 after issuance of the LSCs by the revenue department in their favour. But to substantiate this claim Mr. P.C. Prusty, teamed counsel for the writ Petitioners failed to place any document what so ever showing such allotment in favour of Power and Electricity Department on 7.9.2005. This being the position it also cannot be accepted that the land was allotted including lands covered by the LSCs issued in favour of the writ Petitioners after 7.9.2005. 8. Inquiry made per direction of this Court issued in connection with WP(C) No. 13 of 2006 stands at a different footing. The court directed to make an inquiry whether the lands under LSCs issued in favour of the writ Petitioner No. 1 herein belonged to Power and Electricity Department. Inquiry was made in presence of the writ Petitioner No. 1 and it was found that the land was allotted to Power and Electricity Department. Taking resort to the said inquiry report this impugned order was passed by the Respondent No. 3 cancelling the LSCs issued in favour of the writ Petitioners. Making of an inquiry in regard to allocation of land and cancellation of LSCs issued in favour of the writ Petitioners are two entirely different matters. Before cancellation of the LSCs it would have been appropriate for the Respondent No. 3 to issue a show cause to each of the writ Petitioners to explain why the LSCs issued in his favour should not be cancelled. But no such opportunity was afforded to any of the writ Petitioners to place his grievance/case before the Respondent No. 3 before adopting such a decision. But no such opportunity was afforded to any of the writ Petitioners to place his grievance/case before the Respondent No. 3 before adopting such a decision. The cancellation of LSCs vide impugned order appears to be passed in violation of principles of natural justice by the Respondent No. 3, such an order cannot be sustained legally. 9. Having considered all the facts situation appearing in the face of the record and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel of both the parties, documents annexed in support of the contention, this Court is of the opinion that in the fitness of things, the impugned order cannot legally stand. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and quashed. 10. However, the Respondent authorities will be at liberty to take an appropriate decision in respect of LSCs issued in favour of the writ Petitioners after giving a reasonable opportunity to the writ Petitioners of being heard. 11. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, however, with no cost.