Harimohan Pawaiya vs State of M.P. & Anr.

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.