D.S. Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the notice dated 2nd February, 1989 issued to the Petitioners by the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad, the Respondent No. 2, calling upon them to show cause as to why steps for getting them punished under Section 38 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter called the 'Act', be not taken.
(2.) BRIEF facts, as pleaded in the petition, are as follows: On 23rd January, 1987 Shakti Kumar Roy, the Petitioner No. 1, moved an application under Section 27 of the Act seeking permission of the Respondent No. 2 for transfer by way of sale of his share in House No. 57/109, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad along with the land measuring about 350 Sq. yards (about.294 Sq. metres), in favour of Smt. Sadhna Srivastava, the Petitioner No. 2. By means of his order dated 3rd February. 1987 the Respondent No. 2 accorded the permission sought by the Petitioner No. 1 and issued 'no objection certificate'. The Petitioner No. 1 executed the sale -deed in favour of the Petitioner No. 2 on 12th March. 1987. Sri Surendra Nath Roy, one of the several brothers of the Petitioner, and his son Sri Amit Roy were not in favour of this sale. They, therefore, filed a civil suit No. 271 of 1987 which was eventually compromised on 11th May, 1987. Later on , Sri Amit Roy, aforesaid, filed a complaint before the Respondent No. 2 alleging that the Petitioner No. 1 had violated the provisions of the Act in as much as he had transferred by way of sale in favour of the Petitioner No. 2 an area of land measuring about 377.13 Sq. metres whereas the permission sought for by and accorded to the Petitioner No. 1 was for an area of about 294 Sq. metres. Thus, according to Sri Amit Roy, there was no permission for sale in respect of an area of about 84 Sq metres which forms part of the sale by the Petitioner No. 1 in favour of the Petitioner No. 2. Acting upon the complaint of Sri Amit Roy, the Respondent No. 2 issued to the Petitioners the impugned notice dated 2nd February, 1989. A counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 has been filed. The assertion in the counter -affidavit is that the area of land transferred by the Petitioner No. 1 by way of sale in favour of Respondent No. 2 was more than the area of land for which permission was sought for by and 'no objection' was granted to the Petitioner No. 1. Counter -affidavit further discloses that the 'no objection certificate' dated 13th February, 1987 had been withdrawn and proceedings under Section 38 of the Act have been started against the Petitioners.
(3.) SRI C.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, and Sri G.L. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Respondents No. 1 and 2, jointly prayed and agreed upon that the petition be heard and decided finally even though it had not been admitted formally. We, therefore, heard the learned Counsel accordingly.;