M. P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
(2.) THE facts in brief, are these. THE petitioner filed a statement under section 6 (1) of the Act. THEreafter the draft statement was prepared under section 8 (1) of the Act and a copy of the same was served upon the petitioner who filed his objections. It seems that the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed and did not lead any evidence in support of his objections. THEreafter, the Competent Authority passed his order under section 8 (4) of the Act. A true copy of the said order dated 25-6-1981 is Annexure 1 to the petition. THE Competent Authority held that 1595.76 Sq. Metres was the excess vacant land in the hands of the petitioner. THEreafter, an appeal was filed and in the said appeal the petitioner moved the court to grant permission to file certain additional documentary evidence. However, the appellate court rejected the said prayer and dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 17-8-1982, a true copy of which is Annexure II to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri H. S. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. Though the writ petition contains a number of grounds, I do not propose to enter into same. THEre is one aspect of the matter which Sri Joshi emphasised and which I consider to be relevant. The learned counsel points out that in the draft statement it was proposed that 1168.79 Sq. Metres will be declared as excess vacant land of the petitioner. However, in the order passed under section 8 (4) of the Act when the petitioner was absent, the Competent Authority declared 1595.76 Sq. Metres as excess vacant land. The learned counsel contends that this was illegal. The learned Standing Counsel has drawn my attention to para 4 of the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. In the said para. it is stated as follows :- " That referring to the contents of paragraph 2 of the writ petition it is stated that 1168.79 Sq. Metres was proposed for declaring the land as surplus in the holding of the petitioner. However, when the survey was conducted by the Competent Authority, it was found that there is more land in his holding and consequently 1595.76 Sq. Metres was declared as excess in the holding of the petitioner. " In view, if after survey by the Competent Authority himself, he discovered some arithmetical or clerical error in the draft statement which had been prepared earlier and a copy of which had been sent to the petitioner, then the Competent Authority should have corrected such clerical or arithmetical error in the draft statement and a copy of such corrected draft statement should have been served upon the petitioner intimating him of the correction which had been made and he should have been given an opportunity to submit his objection thereafter. There is nothing very specific in section 8 of the Act to provide for such contingencies as arose in this case. However, on general reasoning and taking into consideration the rules of natural justice, it seems to me that while I should hold that the Competent Authority has jurisdiction to correct clerical or arithmetical error or errors due to inadvertence in the draft statement prepared under section 8 (1) of the Act, the person concerned who holds the land, must be given, a fresh opportunity to file his objection in the light of the amendment effected in the draft statement. Since this course was not followed in the instant case, in my view, the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority under section 8 (4) of the Act and the impugned appellate order dismissing the appeal and affirming the said order of the Competent Authority under section 8 (4) of the Act should be quashed.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, I allow this petition and quash both the said orders. The case is now remanded to the Competent Authority to proceed in the manner as stated above. It seems to me that it will be just and expedient that the Competent Authority should prepare a fresh draft statement under section 8 (3) of the Act in the light of the statement which was submitted by the petitioner under section 6 of the Act and further in the light of such enquiry as the competent Authority may deem fit to make on the basis of the material on the record including his own survey which he carried out and which has been referred to in para 4 of the counter affidavit. After such fresh draft statement has been prepared containing the particulars as specified under Sec. 8 (2) of the Act, the same shall be served on the petitioner together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within 30 days of the service of the said statement and the notice on the petitioner. The Competent Authority shall thereafter proceed to pass his order under section 8 (4) of the Act in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. It is needless to emphasise that as I have directed the proceedings to be started anew in the manner as stated above, the petitioner will have full opportunity to file his objections after he is freshly served with the new draft statement and thereafter he will have full opportunity to adduce the necessary evidence, oral and documentary, in support of his objections on the date which will be fixed for the entertainment of his objections, if any. Here I would like to emphasise that the Competent Authority and the appellate court both have pointed out that the petitioner has been negligent and non-cooperative in the ceiling proceedings which were taken against him before the Competent Authority. It is hoped that the petitioner will be more cooperative and diligent in the proceedings which will take place before the Competent Authority hereafter. There will be no orders as to costs. Petition allowed;