G. SRINIVAS versus GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 20-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
G. SRINIVAS 
v. 
GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 
B 
'l~i; SINHA AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Property Laws : · 
Immoveable property-Title claim based on unregistered sale deed-
C State Government directing Collector to issue no-objection-certificate and a 
supplementary shethwar in favour of claimant after satisfying itself of documents 
produced before him-Collector found it to be evacuee property and rejected 
the claim-State Government upholding order of Collector, but before that, a 
further opportunity for hearing asked by claimant was not considered-High 
D Court upholding State Government order-Justification of-Held: Order of 
State Government to Collector to issue no-objection-certificate in favour of 
claimant did not attain finality-Fact that impugned property was evacuee 
property was not brought to notice of State Government before it issued that 
order and it was entitled to rectify its mistake-However, in facts of the case, 
State Government directed to give one more opportunity of hearing to claimant. 
E 
Government Order-Passed by mistake and with ignorance of relevant 
facts-It can be reviewed if it is found that a fraud was practiced or there was 
willful suppression. 
Appellant cla.imed right, title and interest over the impugned plot 
F of land relying on an unregistered sale deed in favour of his father. On 
his representation, respondent-State Government by a GOM directed the 
Collector to issue no objection certificate and supplementary shethwar in 
his favour, after satisfying itself about documents produced by him. The 
Collector gave opportunities of hearing to appellant wherein he denied 
G that impugned plot was an evacuee property. However, the Collector 
rejected his claim. By another notice, appellant was asked to appear before 
Minister of Revenue, and he filed written submissions through his advocate 
and hearing was given. But another notice to his advocate remained 
unserved. Appellant asked for another opportunity of hearing, but instead, 
H 
404 
1
--· 
G. SRJNlVAS v. GOVT. OF A.P. 
405 
respondent passed an order rejecting his claim. His writ petition against A 
that order was allowed by Single Judge of High Court, declaring him to 
be owner of the impugned plot. But a Division Bench of High Court set 
aside that judgment. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that by the GOM he had acquired a right which 
he could not be deprived of without compliance with principles of natural B 
justice. Further, keeping in view that notice could not be served on his 
advocate, another opportunity of hearing should be given to him. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD I. Some findings were arrived at by the Government of A.P C 
in favour of the Appellant in terms of GOM. The said order, however, 
may not be said to have attained finality in the sense that the Collector 
had been specifically directed to issue a supplementary sethwar in the 
name of the Appellant and he was supposed to do so upon satisfying 
himself in that behalf. Such a satisfaction on the part of the Collector could D . 
be arrived at only upon application of mind on the claim of the Appellant. 
If during inquiry, the Collector came to know that the property in question 
was in fact evacuee property, nothing prevented him from bringing the 
same to the notice of the State. The State also cannot be said to have acted 
illegally or without jurisdiction in issuing the show cause notice to the 
Appellant inter alia rectifying the mistakes as evidently the said fact had E 
not been brought to its notice before issuing GOM. (411-B-E] . 
2.1. Advocate appeared for the Appellant before the Minister for 
Revenue and filed written submissions and parties were heard. However, 
one notice does not appear to have been served asking the counsel for the 
Appellant to appear on particular date. Furthermore, while passing his F 
order, the Minister for Revenue does not appear to have taken into 
consideration the representation for further hearing filed earlier. 
(411-F-G; 412-A-B] 
2.2. In the aforementioned situation, a further opportunity of hearing G 
may be given to the Appellant. For the aforementioned purpose, it is not 
necessary for the State to issue another notice inasmuch as in view of the 
allegations and counter allegations made in the writ petition, special leave 
petition as also the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondents, each 
party is aware of the contentions raised on behalf of the other sid

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.