GEETA AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ for quashing that part of the order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent No. 2) in U.L.C. Case No. 8 of 1976, whereby finding was recorded that the sale of lands by Smt. Tribeni Devi, which was eventually acquired by the petitioner, was in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Bihar Ceiling On Urban Property (Temporary Restrictions on Transfer) Ordinance, 1976 and as such, the sale -deed was not legal.

(2.) THE grounds advanced in support of the prayer are that the respondent No. 2 had no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order with the finding that the sale -deed executed by Smt. Tribeni Devi was null and, void in view of the Ordinance since the Ordinance was never enacted 16/5/2 into 014 any Page 1Act 70 and had lost its force much prior to the date of execution of the sale -deed and further, that the State of Bihar had no competence to promulgate the Ordinance in respect of the subject which did not fall under any of the entries in List 2 of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order on wholly irrelevant and extraneous consideration not germane for the purpose of passing the said order.

(3.) SHRI Section Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, emphasizes that the Ordinance was never enacted as an Act and it had died its natural death after the statutory period of its promulgation and even otherwise, admittedly no proceeding was initiated at the time when the Ordinance was in force and, therefore, in absence of any enactment, respondent No. 2 had no authority or jurisdiction to record its finding that the sale -deed executed by Smt. Tribeni Devi was null and void. Learned Counsel would argue further that even if there was an Ordinance, the same was not saved by the Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Learned Counsel adds that the aforesaid finding of the respondent No. 2 in the impugned order is perverse and is based wholly on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Learned counsel, by referring to the counter -affidavit filed in this case on behalf of the respondent No. 2, submits that in the light of the objection taken by the petitioner, this Court had directed the respondent No. 2 to inform by way of a counter - affidavit as to when did the Ordinance lapse and when and in what manner the Government of Bihar adopted the Urban Ceiling Act after lapse of the Ordinance, but respondents have failed to furnish any such information.