NETRA KUMAR PRADHAN AND ORS. v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

4

those petitioners had not been fraudulently obtained. Thereafter, Educated Unemployment Youth of Regu seem to have filed another complaint. An inquiry was initiated once again by the respondent no.2 on 28.09.2005 which culminated in the respondent no.2 on 11.01.2006 holding that the COI of the petitioner no.5 and his family members are genuine.

3. The respondent no.3 seems to have filed yet another complaint against some of the petitioners and on 30.10.2006 the respondent no.1 cancelled the COI of Ganesh Kumar Pradhan and petitioner nos. 1 to 4. The respondent no.1 also directed the cancellation of land records/parcha issued in respect of Ganesh Kumar Pradhan issued on the basis of false COI with a further direction that Ganesh Kumar Pradhan may be given an opportunity to sell his land to a person having valid Sikkim Subject Certificate within a period of one month. By yet another Order dated 07.08.2008 the other petitioner's COI were also cancelled by the respondent no.1.

4. The petitioners thereafter, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 40 of 2010 challenging the Orders dated 30.10.2006 and 07.08.2008 passed by the respondent no.1. The plea that the reports of the Special Branch Sikkim Police and the Vigilance Department

5

against them had not been furnished before passing impugned Orders dated 30.10.2006 and 07.08.2008 was accepted by this Court. Accordingly the impugned Orders were set aside without examining the merits of the case remitting it to the Competent Authority with a direction to furnish the copies of the reports and hold a fresh inquiry. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 after examining the matter afresh cancelled the COI of petitioner nos. 1 to 11 and Ganesh Kumar Pradhan.

5. The respondent no.2 was also directed to scrutinize all land transactions done using the COI of the petitioners and initiate proceedings as the transfer of property was based on the COI which were cancelled.

6. The petitioners on legal advice received however, filed a civil suit after issuance of a legal notice. Although this legal notice is dated 18.02.2019 the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that it was a typographical error and it ought to have been 18.02.2020. The civil suit however, was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the petitioners ought to have approached the Secretary, Land Revenue and Disaster Management Department by filing an appeal against the Order dated 01.07.2019 as provided in Notification No. 119/Home/2010 dated 26.10.2010.

6

7. It was only thereafter, that on 26.09.2021 an appeal was preferred to the Secretary, Land Revenue and Disaster Management Department in terms of the relevant clause of Notification No.119/Home/2010 dated 26.10.2010 which reads as under:-

"The issuing authority is also authorized to cancel the Certificate of Identification of a person if it is reasonably established that the Certificate has been obtained by him/her or on his/her behalf by misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact. Any person aggrieved by the refusal to grant or cancellation of his/her Certificate of Identification by the Issuing Authority may apply within one month of such refusal or cancellation to the Secretary Land Revenue & Disaster Management Department for redress."

8. The learned Appellate Authority was of the view that the delay of 819 days could not have been condoned in the facts of the case and rejected the appeal on that ground alone without examining it on merits.

9. As seen above the cancellation of COI has serious civil implications. In that view of the matter this Court is of the view that the delay although substantial should be condoned in the peculiar facts of the case to enable the petitioners to ventilate their grievances before the Appellate Authority on merits. More so when apparently the petitioners seem to have been advised to file a civil suit against the cancellation of their COI although an appeal was provided for in Notification No.119/Home/2010 dated

7

26.10.2010. The records reveal that the petitioners from at least 18.02.2020 till 03.09.2021 were bonafide pursuing a remedy before the Civil Court against the impugned Order dated 01.07.2019. Considering the serious implications of the cancellation of COI of the petitioners, this Court is of the view that it would be unfair to non suit them in the statutory appeal on the ground of delay in preferring the appeal.

10. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 05.04.2022 and note-sheet dated 19.09.2022 are set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Secretary, Land Revenue and Disaster Management Department for its re-examination on merits after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Appellate Authority shall hear the matter afresh on merits and decide the case.

( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan ) Judge

Approved for reporting : Yes

Internet : Yes

to/