Cancellation of a decades-old patta without notice violates natural justice and is unsustainable.

The petitioner was granted a patta/lease over the disputed property by the competent authority on 10.04.1981, following which his name was entered in the revenue records.

After approximately forty years, proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint by the private respondents, and the Collector and District Magistrate, Shahdol, cancelled the petitioner’s patta by order dated 23.03.2021 in suo motu proceedings.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation on the grounds that no notice or opportunity of hearing had been provided before the adverse order was passed.

The State asserted that notice had been issued on 23.03.2020 and that the petitioner had failed to appear, but produced no supporting document.

The respondents also contended that the land was recorded as “Jungle” and therefore could not have been granted on patta.

Whether the Collector could cancel the petitioner’s patta without adequately recording that notice had been issued and that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of hearing.

Whether the respondents could rely on reasons or factual assertions not contained in the impugned order to justify the cancellation.

Whether a patta granted during settlement proceedings approximately forty years earlier could be cancelled in the manner adopted by the Collector.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and fair play, particularly the requirement of prior notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing before an adverse administrative or quasi-judicial order is passed.

It relied on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, for the rule that an administrative order must stand or fall on the reasons contained in it and that the authorities cannot subsequently supplement the order by introducing new reasons.

The Court also considered the State’s reliance on Ranveer Singh v. State of M.P., 2010 (4) MPLJ 178, concerning initiation of proceedings from the date of knowledge, but found that the State had not substantiated compliance with the procedural requirement of notice.

The impugned order did not record that notice had been issued to the petitioner or that, after service, he had deliberately failed to appear.

Although the State’s return asserted that notice had been issued, that assertion was unsupported by any documentary material and could not cure the defect in the order.

Further, the Collector’s reliance on the land being recorded as “Jungle” did not demonstrate that the petitioner had been heard on that issue.

In light of Mohinder Singh Gill, the respondents could not supplement the impugned order through pleadings before the Court.

The Court also considered it significant that the patta had been granted during settlement proceedings nearly four decades earlier, apparently after scrutiny by the State authorities, and could not be recalled without following due process and passing a reasoned order.

It quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Collector, Shahdol, for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit a reply and after passing a speaking order communicating the decision to him.

The exercise was directed to be completed within sixty days of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The interim order dated 10.02.2025 was continued until the fresh order was passed.

The petition was disposed of finally, without any order as to costs.