POORALAL Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, petitioner is challenging the Order passed by Competent Authority, appointed under Urban/Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (For brevity the 'Act') on 17.4.1989 and the Appellate Order dt. 3.1.1989, passed by Additional Commissioner, Ujjain.

(2.) PETITIONER 's contention is, that Petitioner had already filed an application under S. 20 of the Act before the State Government through Respondent No. 1 claiming exemption of the said land, for the reasons stated in the said application. The said application was still pending and no orders on the same were passed. Petitioner had also filed his Return of the detailed land held by him. In the said matter proceedings were going on before the Competent Authority. On 11.2.1981, this fact was brought to the notice of the Competent Authority by counsel for petitioner that in view of the pendency of petitioner's application, filed under S. 20 of the Act, these proceedings be stayed. This argument of the petitioner found favour with the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority sine -a -die adjourned the case, without giving any further date of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was under an impression that, as and when, the matter would be taken up for consideration, he would again be noticed.

(3.) I have gone through the order -sheet. The contention, as advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner appears to be correct. After the matter was adjourned on 18.2.1981, no date of further hearing to the petitioner was given. All of a sudden, the matter was taken -up for hearing on 8.12.1983, without notice to the petitioner, on the ground that petitioner's application filed under S. 20 of the Act has already been rejected. After having gone through the order -sheets and after having heard the learned counsel for portion, I am of the view, that such a procedure should not have been adopted by the Competent Authority, when, the matter was adjourned and no further date of hearing was given to the petitioner. It was obligatory on the part of the Competent Authority to have issued a fresh notice to the petitioner for his appearance, so that, he could participate in the proceedings further. There appears to be deviation from settled principles of procedural law, which is otherwise required to be followed.