LAXMI DEVI GHOPRADE Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Compendiously, the Act) is Constitutional and valid as there is no guideline in the exercise of suo motu power to State Government to call for and examine the record; whether the State Government was justified in making interference in the exercise of the Revisional jurisdiction whether the State Government raise an objection in Revision about jurisdiction of the lack of Competent Authority (Sri K.P. Srivastava) even though no such objections were raised when the matter was pending before the Competent, Authority; whether the Competent Authority could ascertain the validity and legality of the master plans and whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the 'principles of natural justice', and 'legitimate expectation,' questions that fall for determination in the present petition filed by the petitioners seeking relief for issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 16th of September, 1985 (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ' Petition), for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order and not to dispossess them. The factual matrix of the case is that the proceedings under. Section 8(4) of the Act, in respect of preparations of draft statement as regards vacant land in excess of ceiling limit, commenced against the petitioner No. 1, Smt. Laxmi Devi Ghoprade as certain area of the land held by her was shown in excess of the ceiling limit and a notice to that effect was served on her and she filed an objection with averments that she did not have the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit.

(2.) THE Competent Authority (Sri K.P. Srivastava), haying been appointed as such, in view of Section 2(d) of the Act, considered the objections raised and evidence led by the petitioner No. 1 and also by State and held in his order dated 29 -6 -81(Annexure No. 1 to the petition) that in view of the procedure under Section 8(4) of the Act, petitioner No. 1, did not hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit.

(3.) THE petitioner No. 1, has filed her objection again in reply to the notice dated 25 -1 -84 indicating that in earlier proceedings under Section 8 of the Act. petitioners objection was allowed and no area of her was shown to be in excess of the ceiling limit and against that order no appeal was preferred by the State of U.P., hence the order became final and would operate as res judicata or in any case estoppel and there is neither any justification nor legal requirement for the second notice under Section 6 of the Act. This objection, however, was not decided by the Competent Authority rather a Revision was preferred by the State of U.P. in 1985, under Section 35 of the Act, after more than four years from the order of Competent Authority dated 29 -6 -81 (Annexure -1) under Section 8(4) of the Act.