Revenue authorities must verify authenticity of Patta from official records before directing eviction for non-production of original.

Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Additional Tehsildar alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon government land reserved for easement situated in front of the Respondent’s property

The petitioner asserted that his father acquired lawful possession of the land in 1982 via a Bhuswami Adhikar certificate (Patta) issued by the Tehsildar

Based on a spot inspection report, the Additional Tehsildar ordered eviction on 31.12.2015

This order was upheld by the Sub-Divisional Officer (21.03.2016), the Commissioner (05.07.2016), and the Board of Revenue (01.02.2021) primarily because the petitioner produced only a photocopy of the Patta rather than the original

The petitioner challenged these concurrent findings via this writ petition, alleging a violation of natural justice

1. Whether the revenue authorities erred in law by ordering eviction without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity for a hearing and evidence

2. Whether the rejection of a claim solely on the technical ground of non-production of an original document, without verifying official state records, is legally sustainable

The court relied on the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the doctrine of audi alteram partem (right to be heard)

State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal (2023) 6 SCC 1, which establishes that principles of natural justice are substantive obligations against arbitrary administrative action

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 8 SCC 519 and Smt. Anusuiya Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 2927 of 2015) to reiterate that administrative actions resulting in civil consequences require a fair hearing, including notice of charges and the right to answer them

The High Court observed that the petitioner’s claim was consistently rejected across four revenue forums on the narrow technicality that the original Patta was untraceable and only a photocopy was provided

The Court reasoned that the authorities failed to fulfill their duty to verify the authenticity of the alleged 1982 Patta from the government’s own archives and official revenue records

It found that the Additional Tehsildar and subsequent appellate bodies did not allow the petitioner to lead oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his long-standing possession

Consequently, the Court determined that the summary eviction process bypassed the substantive requirements of a fair trial, rendering the orders arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice

It held that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to substantiate his claim through evidence. The matter was remitted back to the Additional Tehsildar with directions to afford a fresh hearing to the petitioner, the State, and Respondent No. 1, and to conclude the proceedings within 90 days

The Court further ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner until the matter is decided afresh