INDIAN OXYGEN LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER), COMMISSIONER, SOUTH CHHOTANAGPUR DIVISION (BEING PRESCRIBED APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER SECTION 33 OF URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976) AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Petitioner has called in question the order dated 2th February, 1993 passed by Deputy Commissioner -cum -Competent Authority, constituted under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the order dated 6th of October, 1998, passed by the Commissioner, South Chottanagpur Division, Ranchi, being the appellate authority under the aforesaid Act. Briefly stated, the facts leading to fling of the present writ petition is that the Company holds landed property in the form of vacant land and buildings in various States, including Maharashtra and the erstwhile State of Bihar. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 197ft hereinafter referred to as "Act" came to be passed to regulak the urban lands and impose ceiling on the holding of vacam land. This Act came into force in the State of Bihar on 1st of April, 1976. Section 4 of the Act prescribes the upper limit of the vacant urban land, to be possessed by any person. Section 3 of the Act prohibits holding of land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which the Act applies. Section 6 of the Act requires a person, holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limits, to file statement. Section 7 further requires a person to file statement in cases, where vacant land held by such person is situated within the jurisdiction of two or more competent authorities, such statement, is to be filed before the authority in whose jurisdiction person holds maximum land. Section 20 of the Act, also provides for grant of exemption in respect to the upper ceiling that under the circumstances enumerated therein. Section empowers the concerned State Government to acquire land in excess of the ceiling limit on payment of compensation, in accordance with Section 11 thereof. On coming into force of this Act, petitioner filed statement under Section 6 of the Act before the Additional Collector, Bombay. Besides filing the statement, it also asked for exemption under Section 20 of the Act. The reason for filing the Statement before the competent authority at Bombay was also explained in the statement. According to the petitioner, it holds and possesses lands/properties in various States, like Assam. Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and New Delhi, and the major chunk of the vacant land is situated in Maharashtra. Copies of the statements were also filed before all competent authorities constituted for different States/Territories to which the Act applied. Petitioner has given details of the vacant lands held by it in State of Maharashtra and other States/Territories. Respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings under Section 10 of the Act for acquisition of the excess vacant land and after preparation of draft statement, inviting objections, and in disposal of the objections, passed the impugned order dated 24th February, 1993 for acquisition of 34452.91 Sq. meters of vacant land from the petitioner Company situated in the State of Bihar out of total land measuring 40,552.96 square metre with the Company. Aggrieved by the order, petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority under Section 33 of the Act. The appellate authority, vide order dated 6th October, 1998, rejected the appeal with a modification of the quantity of the land acquired and appellate authority directed acquisition of 30607.12 square metres of land and allowed the Company to retain 9,945.84 Square metres. Validity of both these orders has been questioned before me, primarily on the ground that, the same arc without, jurisdiction, having not been passed by competent authorities. According to the petitioner, it is the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra, with whom statement under Section 6 has been filed, who alone can initiate proceedings under Section 10 and other related sections of the Act. With a view to appreciate the contention of the petitioner Section 7, is noticed hereinbelow:

(2.) READING of Section 7(i), itself, makes it clear that where the vacant land, held by a person, is situated within the jurisdiction of two or more competent authorities, he is required to file returns before such authority, within whose jurisdiction major chunk of the vacant land is situated. The Section further provides that all subsequent proceedings shall be taken up before such competent authority to the exclusion of other authorities. It is not in dispute that petitioner has filed statement before the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra. However, the proceedings for acquisition of land in terms of Section 10 were initiated by the competent authority in the State of Bihar, where also some of the vacant land, held by the Company, is situated. From the orders, impugned, it does not appear that the plea of jurisdiction was raised and forcefully projected before the competent authority as also the appellate authority. Even pleadings of the petitioner do not demonstrate that any such plea was raised, Respondents, in the counter -affidavit, have mentioned that no plea of jurisdiction was raised before the competent authority. Be that as it may the fact remains that the question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the issue. Section 7 of the Act, as noticed hereinabove, clearly provides for exclusion of jurisdiction of all the authorities except where the major chunk of the vacant land is situated and where the first statement under Section 6 is filed. In such a situation if the plea of the petitioner is based on facts, it is only the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra, which can initiate proceedings under Section 10 of the Act, and not that of the State of Bihar. In absence of authentic records available on record. I deem it proper to quash the impugned order and remand the case to the respondent No. 3 for fresh hearing and orders. Petitioner is permitted to file subsequent pleadings/materials, with such affidavit, as the petitioner may desire to produce to raise in support of its plea of jurisdiction. Respondents are also at liberty to rebut any such material or for that matter pleadings/affidavits filed by the petitioner before the competent authority. Competent authority shall consider the material/fresh pleadings and pass a fresh order after hearing the parties. Petitioner may file their fresh pleadings/material before the authority within a period of two months and the other side shall have the liberty to file its objections/reply within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of fresh pleadings/material filed by petitioner before the competent authority. Competent authority shall proceed to hear the parties and decide the matter, not later than six months from the date of completion of the pleadings.