- (1.) THE point involved in the writ petition is whether in dealing with and disposing of an application for exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976, the applicant is entitled to be heard and what are the material factors that had to be taken into consideration while disposing of such application.
(2.) THE fact of the case is that the petitioner M/s. A. T. Dev Private ltd. , a well-known company is engaged in the business of printing and publishing several books, journals etc. and the number of employees employed in its publication unit is about 120 persons. The petitioner had its printing press at 22/5b, as well as at 24, Jhamapukur Lane, calcutta. The publication and sales office is situated at 9/1, Subal chandra Lane, Calcutta and at No. 1 and 6a, Shyama Charan De street. The City Office is situated at 22/5a, 3hamapukur Lane, Calcutta. For the purpose of development and extension of business and for extension of the factory premises, the petitioner purchased a disputed land measuring about 1627 sq. meters at 128/2b, Dhana devi Khanna Road, Narkeldanga, Calcutta, on 19th December, 1964. After the purchase of the said land, the petitioner prepared a plan for construction of its factory premises. The company could not start with the constructional work because of its acute financial crisis and thereafter the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force (referred to as the said Act ). After the said Act came into force, the petitioner made an application under section 20 of the said Act for exemption of the said land before the State government, stating, specifically the description of the said land, the purpose for which the land was purchased and the particulars of the factory that was decided to be set up there. In the said application, the petitioner made out a case of great hardship and unless such exemption is granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner company will suffer loss and also there will be loss of employment. The petitioner also stated that Section 23 of the said Act provides that "it was competent on the part of fine State Government to allot the excess land to any person for the purpose relating to or in connection with any industry or for providing residential accommodation of such type as may be prescribed by the government, to the employees of any industry. " In other words, the case of the petitioner as made out in the said application under Section 20 of the said Act that it was a fit and proper case where exemption should be granted inasmuch as the said land will be fully utilised for the purpose of setting up of an industry which would create new and additional employment and that was precisely the purpose for which the said Act was enacted as provided in Section 23 of the said Act. It was also mentioned that the petitioner company did not carry out any business excepting the printing and publishing of books and journals for students and other people in this State and that the said land was purchased solely for the purpose of setting up a factory. The said application was filed on 19th January, 1981 and was rejected by the order dated 1st December, 1981 without considering the case as made out by the petitioner in the said application and without giving the petitioner any opportunity of being heard. The said application was rejected by stating that the said application was rejected after taking into consideration of all the aspects involved in the matter and the Government was satisfied that it was not a fit case in which exemption under Section 20 (1) (a) of the said Act should be granted as the commercial needs of the company did not justify the retention of the excess vacant land and that the needs of the company would be adequately served by utilisation of the retainable land of 500 sq. meters only.
(3.) MR. L. C. Bihani, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended in the first place that the impugned order was void inasmuch as the application for exemption under Section 20 of said Act was rejected without giving the petitioner any opportunity of being heard and that it was contended that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents concerned to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before the same was rejected. Reliance was placed to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Nanda Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1982 m. P. 33 wherein the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court held that even though under Section 20 of the said Act, there is no specific provision for giving reasonable opportunity to the person concerned, from the language and in view of the object which the provision has to achieve it has been regarded that the principle of natural justice has to be observed while deciding the claim for exemption and that power to claim exemption is a valuable right and where under the provision of the Act, the authority is empowered to grant and a person has a right to claim for fulfilment of statutory condition, the authority is bound to hear him and pass a speaking order giving reasons in support of its finding that he is not entitled to the exemption. Reliance was also placed to the Division Bench 3udgment of gujarat High Court in the case of Manilal Hiralal Doshi and Ors. v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1985 Gujarat 47 wherein it was held that "when a citizen applies, for exemption, say for example for establishing any industry and such proposed user of the land is one of the relevant factors to be counted while dealing with an application under Section 20 (1) (a), the citizen in such a situation would be able to explain his difficulty more effectively if personal hearing is granted. It is because of this far reaching effect of the Government's decision on the prospect that the hearing is required to read as the implicit requirement of the provision of Section 20 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act". In my view the power conferred under Section 20 of the said Act could not be lightly exercised and in view of the object for which such power is conferred, it is implicit that hearing has to be given before any decision is taken against an applicant who is likely to be prejudicially affected in case such exemption is not granted and I respectfully agree with the above two decisions of the Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat High Court referred to above.;