B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) IS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act).
(2.) THE facts leading to this petition are that the Petitioners were tenure holders of plot Nos. 62 and 63 situate in village Chak Niratul, Tahsil Chail, district Allahabad. These plots were situated at the outskirt of the city of Allahabad and they were under the Municipal Corporation and were governed by the provisions of the Act. The Petitioners submitted a return Under Section 6(1) of the Act on 15.09.1976 there the Competent Authority, Allahabad and the same was registered as Case No. 1066 of 1976, State v. Mohammad Islam. Thereafter no notice was received by the Petitioners about the order passed on the statement filed by the Petitioners Under Section 6(1) of the Act. On 08.03.1979 some official of the Ceiling Department enquired about the Petitioners' residence and informed them that some part of the plots of the Petitioners has been declared as surplus by an ex parte order dated 20 -6 -78 (Annexure -1 to the petition). The Petitioners immediately thereafter moved an application for restoration purporting to be Under Section 45 of the Act read with Section 151, Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling there parte order, stating that the Petitioners were not served with any draft statement issued Under Section 8 of the Act and no service was effected in view of procedure contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Act and the relevant rules. The ex parte order was illegal, without any notice to the Petitioners and was passed without hearing them, hence the same may be recalled. The Competent Authority, however, rejected the said application by order dated 12.08.1979 Annexure -2 to the petition). The Petitioners appeal Under Section 33 of the Act also met the same fate. It is against these two orders the present petition has been filed.
(3.) SRI H.C. Kharbanda, learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that the procedure contemplated by Section 8(3) of the Act was mandatory and condition precedent for passing any subsequent order against the Petitioners; and unless a notice as contemplated by this provision was served, in the manner prescribed, no further order can be passed on the draft statement and as no notice was served on the Petitioners all the subsequent proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction. The order declaring surplus land was also without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Laxmi Narain an and Prakash v. Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P., AIR 1980 All. 195 (FB), Shantanu Kumar v. State of U.P. : 1979 AWC 585 (FB) and Sharifuddin v. Abdul Ghani Lone : AIR 1980 SC 303.;