2005 (9) TMI 676 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of principles of natural justice.
2. Validity of the notification declaring the property as evacuee property.
3. Identity of Khaja Moinuddin Ansari and Moin Nawaz Jung Bahadur.
4. Issuance of supplementary sethwar and no objection certificate.
5. Jurisdiction and procedural fairness in administrative orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Principles of Natural Justice:
The core issue in this appeal is the scope and extent of the application of the principles of natural justice. The appellant argued that the State of Andhra Pradesh could not have reopened the matter without initiating a proceeding under the Evacuee Property Regulation. The appellant contended that the principles of natural justice were violated as he was not given proper notice to deal with the questions regarding the vesting of Plot No.7-A and the identity of Khaja Moinuddin Ansari and Moin Nawaz Jung Bahadur. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant should be given a further opportunity of hearing, noting that the principles of natural justice had not been fully complied with.

2. Validity of the Notification Declaring the Property as Evacuee Property:
The appellant challenged the notification dated 15.09.1949, which declared the properties of Khaja Moinuddin Ansari alias Moin Nawaz Jung Bahadur as evacuee properties. The learned Single Judge had held that the notification was bad in law as it did not contain material particulars of the properties, which was a mandatory requirement. However, the Supreme Court noted that the validity of such a notification could not be questioned in a collateral proceeding and required a proper legal challenge.

3. Identity of Khaja Moinuddin Ansari and Moin Nawaz Jung Bahadur:
The State contended that Khaja Moinuddin Ansari and Moin Nawaz Jung Bahadur were the same person, whose properties were declared evacuee properties. The appellant disputed this, arguing that they were different individuals. The Supreme Court highlighted that the identity of the person could not be conclusively determined in a writ proceeding and required a detailed inquiry.

4. Issuance of Supplementary Sethwar and No Objection Certificate:
The appellant sought the issuance of a supplementary sethwar and a no objection certificate for Plot No.7-A. The Government had initially directed the issuance of these documents in GOMs No.955 dated 17.09.1992. However, the Collector of Hyderabad District raised concerns that the plot was an evacuee property, which led to further inquiries and notices. The Supreme Court noted that the Collector was required to satisfy himself about the appellant's claim before issuing the documents, and the matter needed a thorough re-examination.

5. Jurisdiction and Procedural Fairness in Administrative Orders:
The Supreme Court observed that the State had the jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice for rectifying mistakes in GOMs No.955 dated 17.09.1992. However, the notice issued on 16.07.1994 was limited to explaining why the words 'supplementary sethwar' should not be deleted. The Court emphasized that if the State intended to recall the entire order, it should have explicitly stated so. The Court also criticized the learned Single Judge for not considering the limited scope of judicial review and the proper procedural aspects required in such administrative matters.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside both the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. It directed that a further opportunity of hearing be given to the appellant, allowing all parties to raise their contentions in the subsequent proceedings. The Court underscored the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring procedural fairness in administrative orders.