CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred against the order dt. 24-1-1983 passed by the Government of India, respondent 2 in exercise of its power under S.34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), setting aside the orders dt. 31-3-1980 and 12-2-1981 passed by the Competent Authority and remanding the case to him for readjudicating the matter, if there is any excess vacant land in the properties, known as bungalow No. 210-B West End Road and No. 195 Police Street, Sadar Meerut Cantonment.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed on the allegations that the petitioners were the owners of the bungalows Nos. 195 and 210-B. There are 17 buildings with dwelling units in bungalow No. 195 and each is entitled to exclusion of 500 sq. meters of land and similarly there are 56 buildings with dwelling units in bungalow No. 210-B and each is entitled to exclusion of 500 sq. meters of the land as appurtenant to them. An area of 12,000 sq. meters is being used as an orchard and it is, therefore, covered under the provisions of S.2(9) of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, filed statement under S.6 of the Act to the effect that there was no excess vacant land. The Competent Authority on the basis of the material placed before him held vide his order dt. 31-3-1980 that there is no excess vacant land in the aforesaid two bungalows. After the aforesaid order, the petitioners moved an application under S.27 of the Act for permission to dispose of the land forming part of the bungalow No. 195 which was accorded vide order dt. 12-2-1981 and on the basis of the aforesaid permission a part of that property was sold. Thereafter the petitioners moved another application under S.27 of the Act for seeking permission for disposing of all the properties comprised in the aforesaid two bunglows and the competent authority observed in its order dt. 16-2-1981 that there was no necessity of obtaining any permission from him. The Ministry of Defence, Government of India, respondent 2, served a notice dt. 23-9-1982 on the petitioners to show cause why the order dt. 31-3-1980 passed by the Competent Authority being wrong be not set aside under S.34 of the Act. In response of the notice the petitioners filed their representation and thereafter an order dt. 24-1-1983 was passed under S.34 of the Act setting aside the order dt. 31-3-1980 passed by the competent authority and remanding the case for reconsideration. The order passed by the Government of India is a non speaking order and before passing it no opportunity for personal hearing was given to the petitioners. The order dt. 31-3-1980 was appealable and since no appeal was filed under S.33 of the Act the order became final and it could not be quashed under S.34 of the Act. The notice to show cause dt. 23-9-1982 contained vague assertions relating to number of buildings in the two bunglows and that the area of 12,115 sq. meters was not covered by trees in such a number as to constitute an orchard. The petitioners, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dt. 24-1-1983 may be quashed.

(3.) It was pleaded in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents that the full facts were not placed before the Competent Authority and some of the buildings shown to be existing in the two bungalows were not existing at all and some of them were unauthorised constructions and as such the land alleged to be lying underneath them and appurtenant to them could not be excluded, under the Act only agricultural land including the land used for horticulture could be excluded from the purview of the ceiling on urban land and since a few trees existed in the two bungalows it could not be held that the land was used for horticulture and as such was liable to exclusion from the ceiling limit and thus 12,000 sq. meters land was wrongly excluded from ceiling area as the land covered by orchard. It was also averred that the impugned order of remand passed by respondent 2 is valid and effective and the grounds taken against it are not acceptable.