2022 (2) TMI 243 - HC - Indian Laws

Appointment of administrator of properties - withdrawal of notice of attachment issue to any tenant of any property - HELD THAT - It is admitted fact that the property in question does not belong to the government. Not only it appears fom the record that the property is of private property of late Mahant Atmaram but also the government has assessed the property as unclaimed property. It appears that initially the order of handing over the moveable and immoveable property including the cash amount was passed by the earlier government and the cheque was also issued in favour of the original petitioner no.1, who had died during the pendency of the petition. It is pertinent to note that the deceased petitioner was declared to be a Chela or heir of Guru Ranchhoddas by his Will dated 12.2.1978. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Civil Judge for Succession Certificate by filing Succession Application No.34 of 1995. Pending that application, decision to hand over the movable and immovable property in favour of the petitioner was taken by the then State Government and proceeding of entrustment of properties to the petitioner was initiated. In that view of the matter, the petitioner withdrew said Succession Application No.34 of 1995 for issuance of succession certificate due to decision of earlier State Government of handing over movable and immovable property to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has relinquished his right to get succession certificate. It also appears that the next government had stayed the proceedings and intimated the Collector to keep inabayance of the order and granting the properties in favour of the deceased petitioner. Upon considering the averments made in the affidavit in reply it clearly appears that at no point of time any opportunity was given to the petitioner. It is tried law that any order affecting any legal rights of any person, an opportunity of being heard needs to be granted especially when there is one order passed in his favour in respect of moveable or immovable property and the same order has partly implemented - the respondents are hereby directed to give appropriate opportunity to the petitioners of being heard for cancellation of the order of granting moveable and immovable property in favour of deceased petitioner no.1. The petition stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the petitioners' claim to the properties of Guru Atmaram.
2. Validity of the Government's decision to stay the transfer of properties to the petitioners.
3. Requirement of providing an opportunity of being heard before canceling the previous order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the petitioners' claim to the properties of Guru Atmaram:
The petitioners claimed that the properties in question were originally private properties of Guru Keshavdas, succeeded by Guru Karsandas, and eventually by Guru Atmaram through respective Wills. After Guru Atmaram's death, Guru Ranchhodas claimed succession, which was contested and ultimately dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which held that Guru Ranchhodas failed to prove his status as chela or shishya of Guru Atmaram. Despite this, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara, in 1971 determined that the properties were personal and not trust properties, a decision that became final.

2. Validity of the Government's decision to stay the transfer of properties to the petitioners:
The Government of Gujarat initially decided to hand over the properties to the deceased petitioner no.1, as evidenced by letters and orders from 1997 and 1998. However, the State Government later stayed these proceedings without giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard. The petitioners argued that this stay was executed without due process, affecting their legal rights to the properties, which had already been partly transferred to them.

3. Requirement of providing an opportunity of being heard before canceling the previous order:
The Court emphasized that any order affecting legal rights must adhere to the principles of natural justice, which necessitates providing an opportunity to be heard. The Court found that the petitioners were not given such an opportunity before the Government stayed the property transfer proceedings. This procedural lapse was deemed significant, warranting a reassessment of the decision to stay the transfer.

Judgment:
The Court directed the respondents to provide the petitioners an appropriate opportunity to be heard regarding the cancellation of the order granting movable and immovable properties in favor of the deceased petitioner no.1. The respondent authorities were instructed to decide the application afresh within six months from the receipt of the Court's order. The petition was disposed of with these observations, and no order as to costs was made. The rule was made absolute to the extent of ensuring a fair hearing and reassessment of the property transfer decision.