- (1.) The Petitioner has challenged the order of the State Government passed Under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Celling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by which it was directed that fresh notice be issued to the Petitioner, Under Section 8(3) of the Act. It is apparent from the records that the competent authority Under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act by order dated 30.4.77 found that the Petitioner is not possessed of excess land, no action is there fore required. The Petitioner in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition specially stated that in 1987 the Petitioner got the plan sanctioned from the Kanpur Development Authority for construction of hotel building in the land in question in pursuance of the said sanction. The Petitioner constructed a hotel building after spending Rs. 15 lacs approximately and the said hotel is running since 1983 and the State Government granted licence for running the same. The hotel building has been assessed tax by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapallka and corporation tax are being paid regularly.
(2.) By the order dated 5.6.87, the State Government exercising the revislonal powers cancelled the order passed by the competent authority and directed to Initiate fresh proceeding after serving the notice Under Section 8(3) of the said Act.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in pursuance of the order, the Petitioner received notice from the competent authority for appearing and filing objection. It is specifically stated that the original order declared no excess vacant land with the Petitioner vide order dated 30.4.77. The State Government passed the order (annexure 4 to the writ petition) after 10 years. A perusal of the order of the State Government shows that notice was issued to the Petitioner but it could not be served upon the Petitioner because his address was not available. Notice could not be served to him and as such the order was passed after perusing the records. It is strange that the State Government could not get the address of the landholder/Petitioner. The Petitioner was served with the notice for fresh proceeding before competent authority. The question that the proceeding In revision before the State Government was without notice to the Petitioner Is abundantly clear and is not disputed.;