Mistake of fact and fair hearing principles permit reconsideration of a prior governmental decision on disputed property claims.

A governmental decision taken under a mistake of fact, or affected by fraud or wilful suppression, may be revisited if the earlier order had not achieved finality. Where fresh facts indicate that the property was evacuee property and the persons concerned were the same, the State is not barred from examining the matter again. The text also notes that an adverse order should generally follow a fair opportunity to be heard, and that collateral writ proceedings are not the proper forum for conclusively deciding disputed questions of title, identity, or the validity of notifications. Judicial review remains limited to its proper scope.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State was justified in reopening the earlier governmental decision and whether the matter required a further opportunity of hearing before any adverse order could be passed.

Analysis: The earlier governmental order in favour of the appellant had not attained finality in the sense that the Collector was still required to satisfy himself about the claim before issuing the supplementary sethwar. If, in the course of such inquiry, relevant facts came to light showing that the property was evacuee property and that the persons referred to were the same, the State was not precluded from examining the matter afresh. An order passed under a mistake of fact, or where fraud or wilful suppression is alleged, can be reviewed. At the same time, the record showed that the appellant had been given opportunities to respond, but the later proceedings and the final order did not adequately reflect consideration of the appellant's request for further hearing. The Single Judge also erred in deciding questions of title, identity, and the validity of the notification in a collateral writ proceeding, and in overlooking the limited scope of judicial review.

Conclusion: Further opportunity of hearing was directed to be given to the appellant, and the State was permitted to pass an appropriate order thereafter. The writ court's decision could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded in obtaining a remand for fresh consideration by the competent authority, while the broader challenge to the governmental and writ court findings was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A governmental decision taken under a mistake of fact, or affected by fraud or wilful suppression, may be revisited, and disputed questions of title or identity should not ordinarily be conclusively determined in collateral writ proceedings.

---