Patta cancellation without service of notice violates natural justice and requires fresh consideration.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his patta over land recorded in his name, contending that it had been cancelled without affording him an opportunity of hearing.

His appeals before the Commissioner and Board of Revenue, followed by a revision before the State Government, were unsuccessful.

The State submitted that a show-cause notice and proclamation had been issued, but the petitioner was unavailable in the village and the notice could not be served.

The petitioner relied on an earlier matter in which the State Government had remanded a similar case for a fresh hearing.

1. Whether the petitioner was afforded a proper opportunity of hearing before cancellation of his patta.

2. Whether the State Government erred in dismissing the revision without considering the petitioner’s specific ground that notice had not been served and he had not been heard.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person affected by an adverse decision be given a meaningful opportunity of hearing.

It also relied on the principle of parity, observing that the State Government had remanded an identical matter for fresh consideration after finding that the affected person had not received an opportunity of hearing.

No statute or judicial precedent was specifically identified.

The State’s submission that the petitioner was unavailable in the village and that notice could not be served supported the conclusion that he had not, in fact, received notice or an opportunity to be heard.

The Court further found that the State Government had failed to consider this specific procedural ground in the revision.

Given the State’s treatment of an identical matter, the Court held that parity supported remand for a fresh hearing.

The petitioner was directed to appear with a copy of the order on 26 October 2026, and the Additional Collector was directed to call for the relevant records and decide the matter in accordance with law within three months.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits.