IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5530 OF 2002

Hazarat Ali        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.      ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By an order dated 8.02.1972, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Saundatti,

allotted plot no. 749, Block Nos. 1-2 of Rampura village District Belgaum, State of

Karnataka, to the appellant by treating him as displaced person.  After one month

and twenty eight days, the concerned officer passed order dated 30.03.1972 whereby

he  revised  the  allotment and allotted  plot  no.  749 to  respondent  no.2  –  Imamsab

Mohamadsab Dupadal and one Fakiramma wife of Meerasah Pinjar.  The appellant

did not challenge the allotment made in favour of respondent no.2 and Fakiramma

but, after more than twenty years, the Special Officer passed order dated 9.7.1992

whereby  he  cancelled  the  allotment  made  in  favour  of  respondent  no.2  and

Fakiramma on the ground that respondent no.2 is residing at Betageri in Dharwad

district  and  no  document  was  produced  in  support  of  his  eligibility  as  displaced

person.

Respondent  no.2  challenged  order  dated  9.7.1992  in  Writ  Petition  No.

6484/1999, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 22.2.2000 on the ground

that there was no tangible reason for cancellation of the allotment after twenty years

and that too without affording opportunity of hearing to the  allottee and making an

inquiry.  The Division

...2/-

- 2 -  

Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the appellant and

confirmed the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge for invalidation of order

dated 9.7.1992.

In our view, when the order of cancellation was quashed on the ground

that the same was passed without giving notice to respondent no.2, the learned Single

Judge ought to have given liberty to the concerned authority to pass fresh order in

accordance  with  law.   His  failure  to  do  so  has  caused  prejudice  to the  appellant

herein.  The Division Bench too committed the same error by not leaving it open to

the concerned officer to pass fresh order.   

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, impugned orders are modified

and it is made clear that the concerned officer shall  be free to pass fresh order in

accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected

persons.

No costs.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, April 01, 2009.