Court orders respondents to provide petitioners a fair hearing on property transfer cancellation. Rule made absolute.

The Court directed the respondents to provide the petitioners with an opportunity to be heard regarding the cancellation of the order granting properties to the deceased petitioner no.1. The authorities were instructed to reconsider the decision within six months. The petition was disposed of with these instructions, and no costs were awarded. The rule was made absolute to ensure a fair hearing and reassessment of the property transfer decision.

---

---

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.

---