BADRI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order passed by Respondent No. 3 declaring the land as surplus under Section 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and also the order passed by Respondent No. 2 who disposed of the appeal by holding that the appeal is not competent.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners were holding agricultural lands in villages Niranjanpur and Kabirkhedi, tahsil and district Indore. It is alleged that the petitioners filed a return under S.6 of the Act before respondent No. 3 on 16th May 1977. It is also alleged that the petitioners submitted an application under S.20 of the said Act for exemption of the petitioners' lands from operation of the Act. According to the petitioners, on this application the competent authority on 15th March 1978 passed an order that further proceedings under the Act are stayed till the application under S.20 is disposed of and thereafter without notice to the petitioners, on 1st June 1981 acted on some report which he had received from the Revenue Inspector and declared 6.840 hectares of land as surplus and directed preparation of a statement under S.8. According to the petitioners, all this was done at the back of the petitioners with no opportunity to the petitioners. As after the statement under S.6 was filed it was expected of the competent authority to hold an enquiry and arrive at conclusions before preparing the statement under S.8. It is contended that even after the statement under S.8 was prepared, the petitioners were entitled to an opportunity and this opportunity was sought by the petitioners but it appears that on 12-8-1981 as nobody could remain present for the petitioners, the competent authority directed issuance of statement under S.9 although in law even in absence of the petitioners the competent authority was bound to consider the objections raised by the petitioners and decide the matter and pass an appropriate order for drawing up of the statement under S.9. It is contended that even after this when notice was issued for delivery of possession, the petitioners learnt about the order passed under S.9 and, therefore, preferred an appeal but the learned appellate authority rejected that appeal holding that it was not competent.

(3.) The scheme of the Act enacts that when the statements are filed under S.6, the competent authority is expected to enquire into the matter and thereafter proceed to draw up a statement under S.8. S.8 reads :