NATHOO RAM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. The facts, in brief, are these: The petitioner filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the Act. The draft statement was prepared under Section 8(1) of the Act and the copy of the same under Section 8(3) of the Act was served upon the petitioner personally on 11 -4 -1978. Thereafter the petitioner himself moved an application on 1 -5 -1978 before the Competent Authority praying that the petitioner did not have any objection to the said draft statement prepared under Section 8(1) and served upon him under Section 8(3) of the said Act. He further prayed that proceedings under Section 10 for the acquisition of the vacant land should be taken. Therefore, the competent authority passed his order dated 29 -5 -78, a true copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition. Certain land was declared as surplus and direction was given that the final statement be prepared under Section 9 and thereafter the notification be issued under Section 10(1) of the Act. It seems that thereafter the final statement was prepared under Section 9 and the notification was issued under Section 10(1) of the Act. Thereafter the notification under Section 10(3) was also published in the Gazette dated December 9, 1978 and the land in question vested in the State Government. Thereafter the State took proceedings for possession under Section 10(5) of the Act and then the petitioner moved an application dated 23 -2 -1979/26 -2 -1979, a true copy of which is annexure 4 to the counter affidavit. A complaint was made in the said application that the possession of the land in question had been taken by the State on 11 -2 -1979 in the absence of the petitioner and it was also stated that the possession is illegal and liable to be quashed." It was further stated in the said application "that the learned District Judge was pleased to stay the possession on 15 -2 -1979 which has been duly communicated in the office." A prayer was made in the said application that the proceedings of possession be quashed. The said application was rejected by the competent Authority by his order dated 8 -3 -1979, a true copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition. Against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal, being appeal No. 17 of 1979, in the Court of the District Judge. Subsequently, he filed another appeal against the order dated 29 -5 -1978, which had been passed by the Competent Authority under Section 8(1) of the Act. The said appeal was numbered as appeal No. 81 of 1980. The memorandum of appeal in appeal No. 17 of 1979 is annexure 2 to the writ petition. The memorandum of appeal No. 81 of 1980 is annexure 4 to the writ petition. Both these appeals were dismissed by one common judgment dated 29 -10 -1981 by the appellate court. A true copy of the said judgment is annexure 5 to the petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri A.D. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner made a mistaken admission on 1 -5 -1978 and he should not suffer on account of such erroneous admission. It was his contention that on merits the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the land in question being treated as an agricultural land and it was exempt from being treated as vacant land. Learned counsel further contended that the appellate court below has not dismissed the appeals treating them as time barred. Therefore, the merit of the controversy needed to be examined. He placed reliance on a Full Bench decision in Nanha v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others : A.I.R. 1976 Alld. 91. In my view, the said Full Bench decision has no applicability to the facts of the present case. It should be seen that in the instant case after the draft statement was accepted by the petitioner by his application dated 1 -5 -1978, the Competent Authority proceeded in the matter and took proceedings under Section 9 and under Section 10. It is not disputed that even the notification under Section 10(3) was issued vesting the land in the State. Thereafter proceedings took place for getting possession under Section 10(5) and thereafter an application dated 23 -2 -1979/26 -2 -1979 (Annexure 4 to the counter affidavit) was moved before the competent authority complaining about the alleged illegal manner In which the State was said to have taken possession on 11.2.1979. A point was made in the said application that possession could have been taken only after 30 days from the service of the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, It was stated in the application that the said notice under Section 10(5) had been served on the petitioner on 31.1.1979. It will thus be seen that at that stage the only controversy which was raised by the petitioner was regarding the manner in which the possession had been taken by the State. As I have already stated above, this application was rejected by the Competent Authority by his order dated 8.3.1979 and against this order an appeal was filed, being appeal No. 17 of 1979. In the grounds of appeal also the objection raised was in relation to the manner in which possession had been taken by the State. It seems that long thereafter the petitioner thought it necessary to file an appeal against the order dated 29.5.1978, which had been passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. This appeal was filed about one year after the said appeal No. 17 of 1979. Both the appeals, as I have stated above, were dismissed by a common judgment dated 29.10.1981 by the appellate court. The appellate court rightly did not go into the merits of the controversy as to whether the land in question was agricultural land or not and whether it could be treated as vacant land or not. The appellate court emphasized that the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not be allowed to raise a grievance after the land in question had become vested in the State. Inter alia the appellate court's observation is as under: - -

(3.) LEARNED counsel further placed reliance on Damodaran and another v. State of Kerala and others : A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1533. In particular, he placed reliance on the observations made in paragraphs No. 8 and 9. In my view, these observations have no applicability to the facts of the instant case.