Summary
The Supreme Court upheld remand of a land-record dispute because the Tribunal had issued directions affecting registered patta holders without hearing them. Earlier proceedings concerning vesting did not dispense with their opportunity to participate in the later mutation proceedings. The High Court correctly set aside the Tribunal’s directions and consequential proceedings for breach of natural justice, leaving the competing claims for decision after affidavits and a hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed the purchaser’s challenge to that remand.
Issues
- Whether the registered patta holders could be affected by the Tribunal’s directions without being joined and heard.
- Whether the earlier vesting-related orders justified denying a hearing in the later proceedings.
Held
- The first two respondents held registered pattas issued in 1980, while the appellant purchased the same land in 1987. Although both sides had been parties in the earlier proceedings ending in 1997, the subsequent mutation petition transferred to the Tribunal omitted the patta holders. They were entitled to be heard whether their underlying title was ultimately right or wrong. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18)
- The Tribunal had already reached findings and issued directions affecting the pattas, so a hearing by the implementing authority could not meaningfully remedy the omission. The High Court appropriately set aside the directions and consequential proceedings, allowed affidavits and remitted the controversy for a merits decision without itself deciding the competing claims. The Supreme Court found no merit in challenging that course. (¶¶ 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court’s natural-justice remand upheld, leaving the underlying controversy for determination after hearing the affected patta holders. Parties to bear their own costs.