AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 13.10.2016 and 08.12.2016 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 5 respectively.
Respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 07.05.2016 directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Tendukheda to issue an advertisement for allotment of patta for Narguwan Tank for the fishing purposes. In pursuance of the said letter, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat has published an advertisement on 02.06.2016 thereby inviting an application for grant of patta in respect of the said Tank.
The petitioner's-society submitted its application for grant of patta. The respondent No. 5 has received two applications and the same was forwarded to respondent
No. 4 vide letter dated 18/20.06.2016. After scrutiny of the applications, respondent No. 4 has verified the documents and list was prepared and the petitioner's-society has placed at Sr. No. 1 in the said list. The said list was then sent to respondent No. 5 for recommendation of Agricultural Standing Committee.
Thereafter, the list of applications was placed before the Agricultural Standing Committee. The meeting of the committee was held on 21.10.2016 and the committee has recommended the petitioner's-society for allotment of
patta. Respondent No. 3, thereafter, vide order dated 07.11.2016 has granted patta in favour of the petitioner.
Respondent No. 4 has also written a letter to respondent
No. 5 to execute an agreement with the petitioner's-society. However, respondent No. 5 vide order dated 08.12.2016 has quashed the advertisement dated 02.06.2016, in pursuance of the order dated 13.10.2016 passed by respondent No. 2. Thereafter, on 22/23.12.2016, respondent No. 5 wrote a letter to respondent No. 2 that in compliance of the order dated 13.10.2016 advertisement for grant of lease was quashed and the Assistant Director Fisheries vide letter dated 07.11.2016 has directed to allot the patta to the petitioner's-society. Being aggrieved the orders dated 08.12.2016 and 13.10.2016, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that both the orders are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional on the ground that no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. He submits that the patta was allotted in favour of the petitioner's-society and only the agreement was to be executed, therefore, a right has also been accrued in favour of the petitioner. He further argues that no reasons have been assigned by the respondents in orders dated 08.12.2016 and 13.10.2016 before cancelling the advertisement. He further submits that the petitioner's-society is fully eligible for allotment of patta and after complying with the procedure, patta was allotted in favour of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner's-society was also recommended by the Agricultural Standing Committee. He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed with a mala fide intention to allot the said patta to some other society.
The respondents have filed their reply and in the said reply, the respondents have stated that as no lease has been executed in favour of the petitioner, therefore, no right is accrued in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the instant writ petition is baseless, misconceived and deserves to the dismissed by this Court. He further submits that after issuance of the advertisement, the complaints were received by the Collector in respect of procedure adopted by the Janpad Panchayat, therefore, the Collector vide order dated 13.10.2016 cancelled the advertisement issued by the Janpad Panchayat. The said process was not completed and before completion of the process, the advertisement was cancelled by the Collector. Merely because the advertisement was issued by the Janpad Panchayat for grant of lease, no right is accrued in favour of the petitioner and authority is competent to cancel the process before its completion.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that an advertisement was issued by the Janpad Panchayat Tendukheda for allotment of patta for Narguwan Tank for fishing purposes. The petitioner has submitted an application for grant of the said patta. Two applications were received before respondent No. 5 and after scrutiny, the name of the petitioner's-society was placed at Sr. No. 1 and the list was forwarded to the Agricultural Standing Committee for recommendation.
The Agricultural Standing Committee has also made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner's-society for allotment of the patta. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 had allotted the patta in favour of the petitioner on 07.11.2016 and an agreement was to be executed with the petitioner. However, in the meanwhile, respondent No. 5 vide order dated 08.12.2016 has quashed the advertisement in pursuance of the order dated 13.10.2016 passed by respondent No. 2.
From perusal of the orders dated 08.12.2016 as well as 13.10.2016 it reveals that no reasons have been assigned by the respondents for cancelling the advertisement. However, in the return, the respondents have tried to justify their action by stating that some complaints were received in respect of the procedure adopted by the Janpad Panchayat. Therefore, on the basis of the said complaints, advertisement was quashed.
However, as per the settled law, the order is to be justified on the basis of the reasons assigned in the order and the same cannot be supplement by way of an affidavit or additional return.
In the present case, the application submitted by the petitioner was dully forwarded to the Agricultural Standing Committee and the Committee has also made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the said recommendation, the allotment order was also issued on 07.11.2016. Thus, as the patta was already allotted to the petitioner, therefore, the right has already been accrued in favour of the petitioner.
Therefore, in such circumstances, the respondents should not have passed the order cancelling the advertisement without issuing any notice or giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, the writ petition allowed. The impugned order dated 13.10.2016 as well as order dated 08.12.2016 are hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to execute the lease deed in favour of the patta of Narguwan Tank in favour of the petitioner.