9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Validity of notice issued by Special Tahsildar regarding change of khatha without specifying reasons for appearance.
The writ petition challenged a notice issued by the Special Tahsildar directing the petitioner to appear regarding a change of khatha without providing specific reasons for the appearance. The petitioner argued that the notice was vague and violated principles of natural justice as he had not applied for any khatha change. The Counsel referred to a previous order directing khatha entry for the petitioner's land, questioning the need for appearing before the Special Tahsildar again. The main issue in this case was whether the notice issued by the Special Tahsildar was valid in law. The judgment emphasized that a notice must be clear and precise, providing adequate information to the party concerned about the case they have to meet. It should state the reason for appearance and allow the party to rebut any evidence against them. The adequacy of notice is crucial for enabling an effective defense, and vague or unintelligible allegations would deny proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Court found that the impugned notice failed to specify why the petitioner was required to appear before the Special Tahsildar regarding the change of khatha, especially when no application for such change was pending. Consequently, the notice was deemed vague and in violation of principles of natural justice. As a result, the notice was quashed, but the Special Tahsildar was permitted to initiate appropriate action by issuing a proper notice in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of, with the impugned notice being quashed due to its lack of clarity and violation of principles of natural justice.
|
