NIRODHI PRAKASH GANGULY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order of acquisition of land belonged to the appellants under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter called as the Act) passed by the competent authority, the appellants filed appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed, and thereafter filed writ petition before this Court in CWJC No. 3347/1998R, which was also dismissed. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) THE short facts, which are relevant for disposal of this appeal, are as follows: The appellants are the descendants of one Nihar Prakash Ganguly, who, as a Karta of the family, purchased the property in question with buildings and orchard in the year 1912 comprising of 19123 sq.mts. of land. The said Nihar Prakash Ganguly died on 10.1.1980 leaving behind three sons - Nirodhi Prakash Ganguly, appellant No. 1, Arya Prakash Ganguly appellant No. 2, Nilay Prakash Ganguly appellant No. 3 and a married adult daughter, Mrs. Rita Chaterjee, as his heirs. Even before his death, the Act came into operation on 17.2.1976. So, Nihar Prakash Ganguly, as a Karta of the family, filed a statutory returns on 6.9.1976 under Section 6 of the Act regarding his property called 'Sunny Nook' situated in Ranchi. As out of the said property, more than 3000 sq.mts. of land was sold much before the commencement of the Act, there remained 15942 sq.mts. of land with the appellants and their father (since deceased). In the year 1972 itself, existing buildings of the property were given for rent by the appellants and their father to a private College, respondent No. 4. In the statutory returns filed under Section 6 of the Act on 6.9.1976, the appellants claimed that they did not have any surplus land which could be acquired under the Act as the land in question consisted of three existing buildings and orchard. Even though such statutory returns was filed even when the appellants' father was alive, no enquiry had been conducted in respect of the said statutory returns. On the date of commencement of the Act, the appellants were entitled to 5 units (father, three sons and one married daughter). In the city of Ranchi, one unit comprises of 2000 sq.mts. of land. The Act is applicable only in respect of surplus vacant land and buildings and orchard are categorically excluded. In the meantime, in the year 1988 the College authorities, the lessees, entered into a sale agreement with the appellants, the land owners, to transfer the building in the property including standing trees and structures measuring 100 Khatas for a consideration of Rs. 6 lacs with an advance of Rs. 1 lac. As per the agreement, the vendee, the College authority, had undertaken to obtain in the name of the vendors the necessary permission for the sale from the Government under the Act for lawfully conveying the land and assured that the final sale would be completed within three months after permission. Admittedly the appellants were absentee landholders since their permanent addresses were at Calcutta. Thereupon the College authority sent a letter to the appellants that since already permission for sale of 100 khatas of land was accorded by the Chief Minister of the State, the appellants could wait for some more time as formal office order has to be passed by the Government. In the meantime, no intimation was received by the appellants in respect of U.L.C Case No. 12/1976. Since the College authority asked the appellants to wait for the formal order of the Chief Minister regarding permission, they were under impression that U.L.C Case No. 12/1976 had not been proceeded. In the year 1997, the appellants visited Ranchi and only then they came to know that the competent authority, respondent No. 3, commenced the hearing of U.L.C Case No. 12/1976 in June, 1992 itself and within a few months, concluded the preparation and publication of final statement under Section 9, notice of acquisition under Section 10 of the Act and ultimately passed ex parte orders holding that there is surplus land and issued notification for acquisition and took possession of the land in question without serving any notice on the appellants. Having shocked to know this, they collected further informations which revealed that the competent authority, respondent No. 3, passed various ex parte orders on 22.6.1992, 3.8.1992, 17.9.1992 and 23.11.1992 as if the notice was issued to the landholders and since there was no response from the appellants, the final declaration had been made and in accordance with the final declaration, notification of surplus land was published and on 23.11.1992 possession was taken.

(3.) IN reply to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, Mr. R.R. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the respondent -competent authority, who passed the orders, would submit that the required procedure as contemplated under C.P.C had been followed and in spite of several notices, the appellants did not choose to file objection and therefore, the impugned orders came to be passed and consequently, it cannot be said that those orders are illegal. However, the counsel for the respondents did not give any reason as to why the special provision under the Act has not been followed.