Revenue Authority Must Provide Opportunity Of Hearing Before Passing Adverse Order Against Any Party: Patna High Court

Justice Sandeep Kumar observed, “Any authority under law before passing any order prejudicial to a party must issue notice to the affected party and will pass the order only after appearance of the affected party and after hearing him. In the present case, from perusal of the order dated 24.08.2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Khagaria and also on going through the averments made by the petitioner, which has not been denied by the State or the private respondents, it is clear that the petitioner was never heard by Additional Collector, Khagaria before passing the impugned order dated 24.08.2019.”

“In my opinion, this kind of order is in complete violation of the principle of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained,” Justice Kumar added.

The aforementioned ruling came in an application seeking annulment of an order issued by the Additional Collector of Khagaria upholding the decision of Deputy Land Revenue Collector recommending the correction or cancellation of three Jamabandi numbers (plot survey number) that were initially registered in favour of the petitioner.

The background of the case involves the following facts:

Madho Mandal, who had three sons - Bhay Lal Mandal, Budhu Mandal, and Ritlal Mandal, passed away. Bhay Lal Mandal acquired land through various registered deeds after a partition, including some from Nasib Mandar and Kalak Lal Mandal. It was claimed that Most. Aksi Devi, the wife of the late Ritlal Mandal, transferred her entire property through a registered deed to Bhay Lal Yadav. Subsequently, Bhay Lal Mandal had his name recorded in the land records of a former landlord, and rent receipts were issued in his name.

However, a partition suit was filed in 1965-1966 by Ragho Yadav and Chhatu Yadav, which led to the creation of a new jamamandi (land revenue record) in favor of Ragho Yadav. Several years later, the private respondents initiated a mutation correction case, alleging that Ragho Yadav had fraudulently obtained the mutation by using forged and fabricated documents.

The matter was escalated to a Jamabandi Correction Appeal, which was presented before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector issued an order without prior notice to the petitioner, leading to the current petition challenging the order.

“The matter is remitted back to the learned Additional Collector, Khagaria to hear the Jamabandi Correction Appeal Case No.17 of 2018 afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner and the private respondents. While deciding the appeal, the Additional Collector, Khagaria will consider all the submissions of the parties and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law,” the Court said while allowing the appeal.

Counsel/s For the Petitioner/s: Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

Counsel/s For the Respondent/s: Mr.Raj Kishore Roy ( GP18 )

Counsel/s For Respondent No. 8.1 to 8.3 : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate Md. Nurul Hoda, Advocate

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 123

Case Title: Chandradev Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6418 of 2020

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment