Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1199 (JHR)

Niru Kuwar v. Medininagar Municipal Corporation

2018-06-11

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in memo no. 993 dated 09.03.2018 in terms of which the petitioner has been informed that the mutation being SAF No. 328031-30117010417 and the holding of the petitioner’s property has been cancelled. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land under old Ward No. 12 (new Ward No. 03) Holding No. 377, total area 0.15 acre of Mohalla-Hamidganj was recorded in the name of Ramdesh Ram i.e., the father of the husband of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, after the death of Ramdesh Ram, the said land came in possession of his wife Sita Kuiwar and sons Bhagwan Das and Shankar Ram (husband of the petitioner). Sita Kuiwar also died and the property was partitioned between Bhagwan Das and Shankar Ram. After the death of Shankar Ram, the petitioner alongwith her children came in possession of the said land alongwith the house constructed over it. She filed an application dated 03.10.2013 and 30.01.2014 before the respondent no. 2-Executive Officer, Medininagar Municipal Corporation, Medininagar for mutation (namantran) in municipal corporation holding register for depositing holding tax of the land and accordingly, name of the petitioner was mutated and the holding tax receipt was issued in favour of the petitioner on 13.01.2017. Suddenly, the respondent no. 2 issued memo no. 372 dated 24.01.2018, alleging that the petitioner had fill-up SAF form, but had not enclosed any document of the land and thus, she was directed to submit the documents of the land within 3 days. Thereafter, another notice was issued vide memo no. 635 dated 16.02.2018, whereupon the petitioner filed an application dated 21.02.2018 before the respondent no. 2 mentioning that all the relevant documents of the land were produced on 02.02.2018 and 03.10.2013. However, she sought further time for submitting original documents. The daughter of the petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking reasons as to why the holding tax is not being collected from her mother. However, no satisfactory reply was given by the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already submitted the documents alongwith her applications for mutation of the property in the holding register and no objection was raised by any person. However, no satisfactory reply was given by the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already submitted the documents alongwith her applications for mutation of the property in the holding register and no objection was raised by any person. However, the mutation of the land has now been cancelled without assigning any reason. It is further submitted that the decision as communicated to the petitioner in terms with the letter dated 09.03.2018 is in violation of the principles of natural justice as also the fundamental and legal rights of the petitioner. It is also submitted that long running demand of the petitioner and her ancestors cannot be cancelled in summary trial without following the procedure of law. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the contents of the writ petition. The mutation of the petitioner’s holding over the property has been cancelled on the ground that neither at the time of filling up of SAF Form nor on notice, she produced the documents of the said land/property. The claim of the petitioner is that the photocopies of the documents were submitted before the respondent no. 2 on 02.02.2018 and 03.10.2013, however, ignoring the same, the order of cancellation of holding has been passed. On perusal of the impugned order dated 09.03.2018, it appears that the same has been passed without discussing the merit of the case. The only ground taken for cancellation of holding is that the petitioner did not produce any document in support of her claim. 5. The principle of audi alteram partem is the pivotal concept of the principles of natural justice. This principle has been applied in the field of administrative action to ensure fair play and justice to the affected persons. Its application is imperative so as to ensure administrative efficiency, expediency and to mete out justice. The procedure adopted must be just and fair. The expression audi alterem partem simply implies that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. This principle is a sine qua non for the authorities in every civilized society. The rule of fair hearing is a code of procedure, and hence covers every stage through which an administrative adjudication passes, starting from issuance of notice to final determination of the issue. 6. This principle is a sine qua non for the authorities in every civilized society. The rule of fair hearing is a code of procedure, and hence covers every stage through which an administrative adjudication passes, starting from issuance of notice to final determination of the issue. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself by quashing the order contained in memo no. 993 dated 09.03.2018 having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent no. 2 is directed to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing as well as time to produce the required documents to the petitioner. Petition Allowed.