2007 (11) TMI 710 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to be heard for 'parcha holders' in proceedings u/s 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961.
2. Validity of re-opening of concluded cases without notice to affected parties.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in re-opened proceedings.

Summary:

1. Right to be heard for 'parcha holders':
The primary issue was whether 'parcha holders', who are in possession of the land, have any right to be heard in proceedings arising u/s 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The appellants, who were 'parcha holders', contended that they were entitled to notice and an opportunity of being heard in such proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the appellants, being in lawful possession of the land, must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before any final decision is taken.

2. Validity of re-opening of concluded cases:
The case involved the re-opening of a concluded proceeding where the land was initially declared surplus and distributed to 'parcha holders'. The re-opening was done without issuing notice to the appellants. The Supreme Court emphasized that u/s 45-B, the power to re-open a case must be exercised sparingly and for adequate reasons. The re-opening should not be done merely for verification and must comply with the principles of natural justice.

3. Compliance with principles of natural justice:
The Court noted that the appellants were not issued notice or given an opportunity to be heard when the case was re-opened and the earlier decision was reversed. The Court held that the rules of natural justice require that before re-opening a concluded issue, notice must be issued to all affected parties, including those in possession of the land. The lack of notice rendered the re-opening order legally infirm and liable to be quashed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the re-opening order due to the failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the appellants. However, it allowed the State Government to pass a fresh order u/s 45-B of the Act after affording an opportunity to all parties, including the appellants. The civil appeal was allowed to this extent with no costs.