COMPETENT AUTHORITY,URBAN LAND CEILING & ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF URBAN LAND TAX & URBAN LAND CEILING Vs. B. SATHIYAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved over the order of the learned Single Judge, who after perusing the records and taking note of specific stand taken in the counter affidavit held that the proceedings initiated suffer from want of notice of hearing.

(2.) The respondent being the owner of the land was issued with the notice to hand over the excess vacant land within 30 days. Contending that no prior notice was issued under the Act, which admittedly stood repealed, a writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition giving the following reasons:

(3.) Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that there is procedural compliance. The provision says that there is no mandatory of service of notice under Rule 2(b). Inasmuch as affixture has been effected, the order of the learned Single Judge requires interference.