Cancellation of a land grant without hearing the grantee violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner claimed to be the legal representative of Sanniah, whose land was submerged by the Hemavathi Reservoir Project.

Under a State scheme, 3 acres and 30 guntas in Sy. No. 4, Block No. 1, Singanakuppe Village, were granted as alternative land.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) cancelled the grant by order dated 29 August 2022, in the context of irregularities identified in alternative-land allotments.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that it had been made without a hearing.

Whether the SLAO’s cancellation of the petitioner’s grant without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice.

Whether the matter required reconsideration, including consultation with the Forest and Revenue Departments if the land was alleged to be forest land.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, holding that an order cancelling a grant affecting the grantee cannot stand when made without affording that grantee an opportunity of hearing.

In exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court also directed that the forest-land issue be reconsidered after obtaining the opinions of the Forest and Revenue Departments; if the land is found to be forest land, alternative land must be granted.

No statute or precedent was expressly cited.

The Court found that the SLAO’s order contained several possible grounds for cancellation but concluded that its observations about other grounds were not specifically applicable to the petitioner.

Because the cancellation had been made without hearing the grantee, the Court set it aside on natural-justice grounds and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after an opportunity to be heard.

It separately directed that any finding that the land was forest land must follow consultation with the Forest and Revenue Departments, with alternative land to be granted if that classification was confirmed.

The Court quashed the SLAO’s order dated 29 August 2022 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner, who may submit material in support of the grant.

On the forest-land question, the SLAO must obtain the opinions of the Forest and Revenue Departments and grant alternative land if the land is found to be forest land.

The Court also directed restoration of the revenue entries in the RTC consequent to restoration of the grant.