Natural Justice Violated When Documents Not Provided Before Deletion of Names from Revenue Records.

The petitioners purchased land comprising Khasra No.134/1/1 (1.50 acres), Khasra No.134/1/2 (2.50 acres), and Khasra No.134/2/2 (8 acres), totaling 12 acres, in Village Kheritappa, Badbai, Tehsil Gauharganj, District Raisen (M.P.) through a registered sale deed.

Their names were subsequently mutated in the revenue records.

The land was initially owned by Mahmood Ali S/o Sadiq Ali, who migrated from India, leading to its allotment to Jeevan Das S/o Sewak Ram Sindhi by the State Government.

Jeevan Das later sold the land to Najmunnisa and Sharafat Ali in 1981, from whom the petitioners purchased it in 1985.

The State Government initiated proceedings under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, in 1983, challenging the sale.

However, the Act was repealed on September 5, 2005, by Notification No.38/2005 of the Central Government, without any provision for pending proceedings.

In February 2012, the State-respondent issued a notice to the petitioners to explain why their names should not be deleted and dispossession proceedings initiated.

The petitioners requested documents to file a reply but the State-respondent passed the impugned order dated April 5, 2012, without providing the documents or deciding the application, directing deletion of names and initiation of dispossession proceedings.

1. Whether the impugned order dated April 5, 2012, and the subsequent dispossession proceedings initiated by the State Government are legally justifiable given the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and the alleged violation of natural justice.

The court primarily considered the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard and the requirement to provide documents for response, when challenging administrative actions.

It also considered the impact of the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, by Notification No.38/2005 on September 5, 2005, particularly the absence of provisions for pending proceedings under the repealed Act.

The court found that the petitioners were in possession of the land since 1985 and their names were duly recorded.

Crucially, despite the petitioners' request for relevant documents to prepare a response to the notice, the State-respondent failed to supply them and passed the impugned order without providing an ample opportunity of being heard.

The court also noted that the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, under which initial proceedings were initiated, was repealed in 2005 without any provision for pending cases, effectively bringing those proceedings to an end.

The subsequent initiation of proceedings in 2011-2012 after a significant delay of 6 to 7 years, and the passing of the impugned order without assigning reasons or supplying documents, was deemed to seriously suffer from princples of natural justice.

The impugned order and the dispossession proceedings were set aside.

The State Government was granted the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.