B.L.YADAV, J. - (1.) BY the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders dated 7th July, 1983 and 1st July, passed by the Competent Authority, Allahabad in proceedings under Section 2 of the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the 'Act') for preparation of the draft statement as regards the plot of land held in excess of the ceiling limit and the order dated 1st December, 1987 passed in appeal, are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that a draft statement was submitted by the petitioner, the owner of the holder of the land. The draft statement was served on the wife of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act, stating that any objection to the draft statement may be preferred within 30 days of the service. Subsequent notice under Section 9 of the Act, rather in respect of final statement, were served on one Ram Abhilakh, the minor brother of the petitioner and not on the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the notice under Section 8(3) of the Act, must have been served on the petitioner in accordance with the procedure contemplated by Rule 5 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules (for short the Rules), but notice were served either on wife or the minor brother. Notices were not served by registered post. Consequently procedure for service of notice effecting the right and title of the petitioner were violated. These statutory notices were sought to be served in compliance of the principle of natural justice.
(3.) SRI Ratnakar Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of the respondents, has urged that the substantial compliance has been done even if the registered notice has not been served on the petitioner. The wife or the minor brother may be deemed to represent the interest of the petitioner.;