Abdul Hai vs The State Of Assam & Ors.

Heard Mr. A. K. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. I have also heard Ms. M. Barman, the learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5.

The Petitioner herein who has been settled with the Bheti at Udali Tiniali Bazar by the Udali Anchalik Panchayat is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 17.08.2022 whereby the said settlement of the Bheti was cancelled and the Petitioner was directed to vacate the Bheti within 10 (ten) days upon receipt of the notice.

Mr. A. K. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that though a Show Cause Notice was issued on 05.03.2022 asking the Petitioner to show cause as to why the Petitioner's settlement should not be set aside and the Petitioner had submitted a reply on 15.03.2022 to the said Show Cause Notice and thereupon the impugned notice was issued on 17.08.2022 thereby canceling the settlement but a perusal of the Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2022 as well as the impugned notice dated 17.08.2022 would show that neither the Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2022 nor the impugned notice dated 17.08.2022 provides reasons or even the grounds on which the Respondent Authority had cancelled the Petitioner's settlement.

Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 submitted that in the reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2022, the Petitioner never raised the issue that he could not understand the content of the Show Cause Notice and therefore the Petitioner cannot now take that plea.

This Court has given an anxious consideration to the respective submissions and has also perused the Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2022, the reply submitted by the Petitioner on 15.03.2022 as well as the impugned notice dated 17.08.2022.

From a perusal of the Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2022, it is seen that there is an allegation that the Petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the settlement issued by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. There is no specific mention as to what is the violation.

It is further seen that in the impugned notice dated 17.08.2022, the Respondent No.3 and 4 have also not specified what is the violation which the Petitioner had committed. It is the opinion of this Court that if the Show Cause Notice is vague and a further action is taken on such vague Show Cause Notice, it violates the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the noticee is not in a position to answer to the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice.

It is also the opinion of this Court that when the settlement has been granted in favour of the Petitioner, the settlement can be cancelled by the Respondent Authorities on violation of the terms and conditions of the settlement. However, when such an order is being passed, it has to contain reasons as to what is the violation the Petitioner had committed. In absence of providing the details of the violations committed by the Petitioner, it renders such action of cancellation violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:

The impugned Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2022 as well as the impugned order dated 17.08.2022 being vague are in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and accordingly both are set aside and quashed.

The setting aside and quashing of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2022 as well as the subsequent impugned order dated 17.08.2022 shall not bar the Respondent Authorities to initiate fresh steps for cancellation of the settlement by providing the violations of the terms and conditions of the settlement.