Kavitha vs The Commissioner, KGF Urban Development Authority and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 30.11.2012, issued by the Commissioner, KGF Urban Development Authority, whereby the learned Commissioner has cancelled the registration and katha in respect of property bearing No. 38, situated at 2nd stage of Rajiv Gandhi Residential Layout, K.G.F., which was in favour of the petitioner. The brief facts of the case that on 16.5.2005, the Commissioner had made an allotment in favour of Ms. Vimala - 2nd respondent with regard to site bearing No. 38, situated at 2nd stage of Rajiv Gandhi Residential Layout, K.G.F. Subsequently, Ms. Vimala''s husband was transferred to Hyderabad. Allegedly, she had sworn an affidavit endorsing that she has no objection if the property were transferred to the petitioner. For, allegedly the petitioner and Ms. Vimala happened to be cousin sisters. On the basis of the alleged affidavit, the learned Commissioner had executed a Lease-cum-Sale Agreement in favour of the petitioner. The Commissioner also issued a Possession Certificate in favour of the petitioner. However, subsequently, Ms. Vimala raised certain objections before the Commissioner. She pleaded that she has never sworn the affidavit dated 14.6.2011 and had never written the letter dated 14.6.2011. Upon her objections, by the order dated 30.11.2012, the learned Commissioner has cancelled the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement. Hence, this petition before this

Mr. Prashanth H.S., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the order dated 30.11.2012 has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner''s right under the principles of natural justice has been violated. Thus, the order deserves to be set aside.

Mr. P.H. Raghupathy, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has frankly conceded, and in the view of this Court rightly so, that the order has been passed without an opportunity of hearing having been given to the petitioner.

Ms. Clifton D. Rozario, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has strenuously contended that, in fact, the petitioner and Ms. Vimala are not related to each other. They are merely known to each other as neighbours. According to the learned counsel, Ms. Vimala has never submitted any affidavit dated 14.6.2011. Thus, a fraud has been played by the petitioner for getting the property in her favour. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the order dated 31.11.2012.

It is, indeed, trite to state that an order adversely affecting the right of a person cannot be passed without giving such a person a right of hearing. Needless to say, this is one of the essential requirements of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Commissioner, before passing the impugned order, should have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well. Since the order has violated the petitioner''s right under the principles of natural justice, this Court sets aside the endorsement dated 30.11.2012. This Court directs the Commissioner to issue notice both to the petitioner, and to the respondent No. 2, to give both of them an opportunity of hearing, and only after hearing both the parties, to decide whether the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement made in favour of the petitioner should be cancelled or not. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With these directions the writ petition is, hereby, disposed of.